Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Numbers

Andrew Selous: What recent assessment he has made of the balance between the number of police officers and police administrative support staff.

Hazel Blears: At the end of March 2003 there were 63,105 police staff, which is 32 per cent. of total police service personnel. This is a record number of police staff, working alongside a record number of police officers.

Andrew Selous: Is not the Minister concerned that the 7,700 extra police employed by the Government are so much fewer than the 9,600 extra administrative support staff? Would not it be better severely to reduce the paper filling and audit endured by our police officers so that instead of nearly 10,000 extra administrative staff we had the 40,000 extra police that the Conservatives would provide?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman must learn to get his sums right. There are an extra 9,000 police officers, not the 7,000 to which he referred. The extra police staff are certainly not pushing paper. They are investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers. There is also a record number of nearly 2,000 community support officers, who are helping us to provide high-visibility, front-line policing on our streets, which is what the public want.

Gareth Thomas: What effect does the Minister think that the recent revelations of racism in a number of provincial forces will have on recruitment, especially among ethnic minorities?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend raises an important and extremely difficult issue. We are doubly determined to tackle racism, and I hope that record numbers of people from black and minority ethnic communities will continue to join our police service—I understand that Greater Manchester police force had a record number of new recruits in its most recent intake. That is why it is vital that we root out racism wherever we find it and ensure that people with racist beliefs have no place whatever in our police service.

Mark Oaten: Does the Minister accept that it is a disgrace that 41 per cent. of a policeman's time is tied up on paperwork and that we want much more done to get our police out on the streets? With that in mind, will she support me in calling for all police on the beat to be issued with palmtops and mobile technology so they can be seen doing their work, rather than being back in the station? Does she also accept that this is the age of techno cop, not paper-clip cop?

Hazel Blears: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Question Time as home affairs spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I am sorry to have to tell him, however, that we have been there, done that. We are well on the road to introducing technology. I visited Wrexham police a few weeks ago. They have hand-held computers and personal computers in the cab so that they do not have to waste their time going back to the office to fill in forms. Video identification services are being rolled out across forces and we also have NAFIS, the national automated fingerprint identification system. Much more technology is now involved. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy visiting forces in which technology is beginning to make a difference.

David Winnick: Arising from what the Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), is not it a fact that had it not been for the undercover work of Mark Daly, people with outrageous racist views would have been kept in the police force? Should not the BBC and, in particular, the reporter be congratulated on the public and civic duty they undertook? Will the Minister explain why it was felt necessary for very senior Home Office officials to write to the chairman of the BBC before the film—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman goes beyond the terms of the question.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend mentions the television programme, which I watched. I was shocked, sickened and outraged by what I saw. However, the new assessment procedure introduced in May this year tests recruits' attitudes to race and diversity in seven different ways. Since that was introduced, 79 potential recruits have not got a job because they failed the diversity part of the test. We will ensure that that new form of assessment for recruits is rolled out across the country, as fast as possible, to ensure that we weed out people with abhorrent and deep racist views.

James Paice: We welcome the increased number of police officers, even though the figures show that they are being paid for by council tax increases rather than by the Government. Last week, the Minister said in Westminster Hall that there would be an increase in spending on the police of 4 per cent. next year to include formula spending, the specific grant and Home Office direct expenditure, yet the Association of Police Authorities says that it needs an increase of 6 per cent. just to stand still. Is it right? If so, by how much will council tax go up, or will we see fewer police next year?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is well aware, from our debates both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, that police funding is a top priority for the Government. Over the past three years there has been significant extra investment, amounting to an increase of some 25 per cent. in support for the police. We are delighted that that has led to record numbers of police and community support officers, and more visibility in our policing.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are due to make an announcement on the police settlement in mid-November, and we are doing everything that we can to maximise the support that we can give to police authorities. However, I say to police authorities that we expect them to analyse their budgets very carefully to justify any increases to their local communities, and I am absolutely sure that that is what they are determined to do.

Jonathan R Shaw: Hard-working police officers in the Medway towns met me and my colleagues to express their alarm, and that of their communities, about phone boxes being blown up by fireworks. They welcome the new powers in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, but will my hon. Friend look at the fact that the police can search people for drugs, cigarettes and tobacco, but not for fireworks—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the original question.

Exercise OSIRIS II

Patrick Mercer: What progress has been made in promulgating the lessons learned from exercise OSIRIS II to other (a) regions and (b) local authorities.

Beverley Hughes: Our early view is that the elements that we planned to test in this exercise worked well, but of course there are lessons to be learned from it for all the people and agencies involved. We aim to make the key findings public before Christmas.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for that answer, as far as it went. It took the Government 104 weeks after 11 September to try such an exercise, and clearly it took place only in London. When will similar exercises be planned and implemented in places such as Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be very well informed about what was going on prior to that exercise. There have been five major exercises since 2000—before the events of 11 September—as well as a raft of table-top and middle-level exercises. The exercise programme for both the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear resilience programme and the counter-terrorist strategy includes a wide range of exercises; there will be another seven over the next six months on the CBRN element alone. I am confident that the agencies, the private sector and other Departments are being brought together both frequently and effectively to test the various elements of our extensive programmes.

Robert Key: Do any of those future exercises include a simulated biological threat attack; and if not, why not?

Beverley Hughes: There are certainly exercises designed to test the planning and framework arrangements for biological attacks. One of the seven exercises that I have just referred to tests the plan for a specific biological attack involving smallpox, as well as a range of other chemical agents.

Chris Grayling: The Minister will be aware that I represent a constituency on the fringes of London. One of my great concerns is that, when I talk to local authority chief executives, they seem to have little real, detailed understanding of how they would have to respond in the event of a major incident. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that those who might be on the fringes of a major incident, and might therefore suffer overspill effects such as the movement of people, are brought into the loop and well versed in what they might have to do in such circumstances?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point because, as he rightly implies, it is not sufficient simply to have well co-ordinated arrangements at the centre for Departments and major national Government agencies; it is extremely important to make sure that there is linkage and co-ordination at regional and local levels. He is right: on the scene, it will largely be local authorities and their counterparts who will respond first.
	There is a detailed structure at regional level to ensure that that co-ordination takes place, and local authorities are engaged with us in a series of exercises. An exercise called "Counterbalance" brings together local authorities and their regional and national counterparts to go through those issues. We have also issued guidance to local authorities, and we are now consulting them on a revision of the existing guidance on the CBRN programme. Finally, we are undertaking a mapping exercise with local authorities, through the regional structures, to assess exactly what progress they have made towards implementing the plans that we are helping them to institute.

Licensed Premises

John Denham: If he will allow police officers to raise money from licensed premises to pay for additional police officers and community support officers.

Caroline Flint: We are concerned about the costs of policing late-night entertainment venues, and we believe that partnership working with the industry is the key to tackling crime and disorder. There are some excellent examples, such as "City Centre Safe" in Manchester. The Home Office is working closely with the Prime Minister's strategy unit to develop an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. The strategy will tackle a wide range of issues, including managing the costs of crime and disorder.

John Denham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. The Government have achieved a remarkable increase in the number of police officers, but is not the problem the fact that too much of a police officer's career is likely to be spent policing town and city centres on Friday and Saturday nights, not out in the communities where people also wish to see them? Do we not need a statutory scheme to enable police authorities and local authorities to raise extra money from the licensed premises that make huge profits from binge and heavy drinking to fund extra police officers and community support officers in every community that needs them?

Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend is right about the cost to local communities of the disorder caused by crime—47 per cent. of violent incidents are committed under the influence of alcohol. As I have said, we are embarking on a strategy with the Prime Minister's strategy unit to tackle the issue among others, and hope to report later this year. Community support officers can be given designated powers to assist in this area. I understand that Hampshire police, who cover my right hon. Friend's constituency, have so far not bid for community support officers, but there will be another opportunity to do so in spring 2004.

Gregory Barker: If police authorities are allowed to raise additional revenue, can it be used to pay special constables? They perform an invaluable role, yet their numbers have been cut dramatically under this Government.

Caroline Flint: It will be open to the force to determine the use of any funds so raised. However, there are already a number of schemes that local authorities and the police, working with club owners and publicans, can use to try to address those issues. In fact, the Licensing Act 2003 includes new powers to shut down rowdy premises within 24 hours and review licences instead of waiting for the point when they are up for renewal, which will help to tackle some of the issues.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I welcome on behalf of my constituents the total of nearly 300 additional police for south Wales since 1997 and the community support officers who have recently been added? However, echoing fellow Members' queries, when the strategy review is complete, can it be rolled out as soon as possible, particularly to places such as Ogmore, where police are being pulled out of remote communities for duties in town centres as well as in the fantastic Millennium stadium?

Caroline Flint: I support my hon. Friend's view that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. It is an issue not only for the police but for local authorities, health services and others. Earlier this year, guidance was published for crime and disorder reduction partnerships on ways in which they could tackle the issue as part of their remit.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that the experiment in New Earswick, where the Joseph Rowntree fund paid for a police officer for a two-year trial period, did not work? The Opposition want to replace two-year time-limited grants for community support and rural support policing with long-term funding for our police.

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I do not know the details of the experiment that the hon. Lady mentioned, but there are issues relating to an end-to-end attitude to the process that involve all sectors of local authorities. If individuals are pulled out to take part in other assignments, that does not necessarily help the problem that they were urged to tackle from the outset. We want collaboration between the police, local authorities and people in the industry to try to find solutions to this challenging problem.

Illegal Drugs

Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to reduce the use of illegal drugs.

Caroline Flint: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government's updated drug strategy was launched in December 2002. Recent achievements in reducing drug use and supporting communities include the introduction of the young people's substance misuse plan in April 2003. Since then, we have launched the Frank anti-drugs awareness campaign, and have announced funding for a two-year anti-stigma campaign for relatives of drug misusers. On Thursday, the Prime Minister announced a pilot arrest referral scheme for young people in 10 sites across the UK.
	In addition, the criminal justice interventions programme is now fully operational in 30 basic command units. The Home Secretary is due to announce further expansion of the programme in early November. We have also achieved a reduction in waiting times and an 8 per cent. increase in numbers accessing treatment.

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the harshest prohibitionist policies against drugs in Europe for 30 years have, perversely, led to our having the worst drug problems in the entire continent—less than 1,000 drug addicts in the UK in 1970 and more than 250,000 now, and no recreational use of cannabis in this country until after it was prohibited? Is not the Government's stand on the reclassification of cannabis a courageous, practical and intelligent one? Although it is a first baby step, is it not likely to lead to a new direction of policy that will reduce all drug harm?

Caroline Flint: The overall aim of our drug strategy is to reduce the harm caused by drugs and, importantly, to reduce the crime caused by those who have drug problems. We do not believe that legalisation is the right step forward. I reaffirm to the House that the reclassification of cannabis in no way legalises cannabis. We are trying to have a mature debate about a highly complex issue. One of the reasons that drugs strategies have failed in the past is that there have been too many gaps through which the people who suffer from addiction fall. Through the criminal justice system and drug action teams, and by working with schools and others, we are trying to make sure that we get the best output from the money that we put in, and above all that we reduce the harm to individuals, their families and the wider community.

Patrick McLoughlin: If the Government win the vote on Wednesday, will cannabis be an illegal drug?

Caroline Flint: Yes.

John Mann: Sweden does it, Australia does it, and now, after years of prevaricating, Bassetlaw is doing it, with GPs taking the lead in treating drug addicts effectively. Would my hon. Friend prefer to wait the two or three years it will take to train more specialist GPs before copying our success, or would she rather give us more money now to evaluate the success and fast-track effective treatment?

Caroline Flint: We are keen to see best practice across the country. As Bassetlaw is a near neighbour of mine, I shall study closely what happens there. One thing is sure: we need to look at a range of people working in the field, from the clinical specialists to others who can make sure that we support people as a way of getting them off drugs and out of drugs. I always have an open ear to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

Julian Brazier: Does the Minister accept that by reclassifying cannabis on Wednesday, the Government will not be doing what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) would like—fracturing the relationship between hard and soft drug dealing—nor will they be taking the kind of tough measures against all drugs, which the Opposition argue for? Is this not one more example of the fact that the third way is no way at all? Instead of sending out mixed and confusing messages on Wednesday, why does the hon. Lady not provide more drug rehabilitation places?

Caroline Flint: I do not accept that. We are providing more places for various forms of treatment. It is not just a matter of residential treatment; it is a matter of what happens to people when they come out of that treatment and how we sustain treatment in the community. That includes dealing with issues such as employment, housing and education. We are not seeking to legalise cannabis by reclassifying it; we are trying to have an important debate based on scientific evidence that looks at the relative harm caused by different types of controlled drugs. The hon. Gentleman and others are guilty of sending out mixed messages, which do not help children, young people and others who expect an honest, frank and realistic attitude to such an important issue.

Greater Manchester Police

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the funding of Greater Manchester police.

Hazel Blears: The budget for the Greater Manchester police this year is £450 million, an increase of 8.6 per cent. on last year. Government grant for Greater Manchester is £380.8 million this year, an increase of 4.9 per cent. over 2002–03. In addition, specific grants of £28.9 million give an overall increase of 6.7 per cent. The police authority will also receive over £9 million in capital funding. We shall announce details of the provisional funding settlement for 2004–05 in mid-November.

Tony Lloyd: While I recognise the enormous increase in funding, does my hon. Friend accept that it is a colossal waste of resources to pursue the makers of "The Secret Policeman", the documentary about Greater Manchester police and other police forces? Is it not a phenomenal betrayal of the people of this country and of Manchester, and of many in the police service, that they are stigmatised as racist because of the failure of those at the very top to deal with racism among our police? I welcome the Minister's strong words in the House today, but what steps will the Home Office take to make chief constables deal with racism effectively?

Hazel Blears: Like me, every Member who saw that programme last week will have been sickened and outraged, but the documentary also revealed that many, many serving officers certainly do not share such racist beliefs. It is crucial that we support the officers in the service who have done a great deal to tackle racism in recent years while redoubling our efforts—at ministerial level, chief constable level and throughout the service—to weed out racist recruits. I am delighted that all the chief constables have written a public letter to that effect and signed up to a seven-point plan. We will ensure that the new police assessment and recruitment process for probationers is rolled out across the country because, wherever we can, we must send out a clear message, both in principle and in practice, that racism has no place in the British police service.

Oliver Letwin: Did Greater Manchester police ask the permanent secretary at the Home Office to write to the BBC, and, if not, why did he do so?

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are questions on that further down the Order Paper. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will answer in detail the questions that have been raised in relation to the permanent secretary's letter.

Oliver Letwin: The Minister cannot escape answering the question. If the permanent secretary was not seeking to stop the film, what was he doing writing to the BBC a month before it was shown?

Hazel Blears: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The question is about funding. The Minister will answer.

Hazel Blears: It is my understanding that the permanent secretary was not requested to write, but chose to do so because of the difficulties that he had experienced in obtaining access to the material involved. That was the basis on which he wrote the letter.

Football Matches (Policing)

Bob Russell: What guidance he gives to chief constables on policing professional football matches.

Fiona Mactaggart: Policing football matches is an operational matter for chief officers. The Home Office works closely with the police, football authorities and other agencies to help minimise the safety and security risks associated with football matches.

Bob Russell: Can the Minister confirm that there are no no-go areas and that the laws of the land that apply to the people who watch football also apply to participants on the pitch, on the touchline and in the players' tunnel? What advice has been given to chief constables to ensure that the law of the land is upheld on the pitch by professional footballers?

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is right: players and others are subject to exactly the same laws and police powers as any other citizen. The police can intervene if the situation makes it necessary. We have worked with local police officers to ensure that they use their powers appropriately. Obviously, during a match, the conduct of the match is the responsibility of the referee and match officials, so we also work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to offer support in respect of that aspect of policing. The Minister for Sport and Tourism wrote to the chairmen of 92 league clubs before the start of the season to remind them of their responsibility for ensuring that their players' behaviour is of an acceptable standard. Since then, he has discussed player misbehaviour and the response of the football authorities on several occasions with the management teams of the premier league and Football League. We in the Home Office expect every police officer to maintain the same standards of conduct among players as they would among the general public.

Keith Vaz: Does the Minister appreciate that the cost of policing football matches is a huge burden on clubs, especially a club such as Leicester, which is going through a temporary blip at the bottom of the premiership? Does she appreciate that in some cases the cost is an arbitrary figure that is placed on specific clubs and games? Will she convene a meeting with the Minister for Sport and Tourism to discuss the matter seriously with the relevant clubs? [Interruption.]

Fiona Mactaggart: It is true that Leicester unfortunately did not do as well as Colchester United at the weekend.
	I acknowledge that there are issues about the cost of policing, especially for the smaller league clubs. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 currently enables police authorities to charge football clubs for deploying officers in stadiums. There have been discussions about whether a further extension of charging is possible. It is a complex issue and there are arguments on both sides.
	The previous Minister with responsibility for policing and the Minister for Sport and Tourism set up a working group that involved police, police authorities, football authorities and others to examine all the issues. The group has not yet concluded its deliberations and it would be premature to speculate on the outcome, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are fed into the conclusions.

Sydney Chapman: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), will the Minister confirm that policing football matches last season cost approximately £50 million, of which only a fifth was recouped from the football clubs? In contradistinction to the hon. Gentleman's remarks and given vast transfer fees and specific clubs' huge amount of wealth, is not there a case for the Football Association, for example, entering into negotiations with the police to ensure that a much greater proportion of the cost is paid back to the police?

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman implies that all football clubs have the same resources as those in the premier league. Some clubs have substantial resources, but the costs can be a burden for a smaller club that finds it more difficult to pay for such matters. The working group to which I referred in answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is discussing such issues. It will consider ways of sharing the costs and the burden. Although the additional policing that accompanies a football match benefits the local community, there are also disbenefits. That is precisely why we have set up the working group. It will consider in its report the clubs that can best bear the costs.

Crime (Bridgend)

Win Griffiths: What plans he has to visit Bridgend in 2003 to discuss with relevant parties his agenda for tackling crime in Bridgend.

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited Bridgend in January last year, when he had an extremely helpful meeting with the borough commander. The Government are committed to reducing crime throughout England and Wales, and are working with local and national partners to do that.

Win Griffiths: I thank the Home Secretary for his visit on that occasion, because it was followed by a resounding by-election victory in my neighbouring constituency. Will he and the Home Office team consider the excellent work of the youth offending team in Bridgend and re-examine its funding? The local authority appears to have to accept a disproportionately high amount of the costs, and other partners should make a greater contribution. In that respect, the Home Office could play its part by ensuring that South Wales police are adequately funded in the coming year.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is some excellent work going on in Bridgend and right across south Wales in tackling drugs problems and antisocial behaviour, and working with schools and young people. I am delighted that South Wales police has 40 community support officers and a further 23 due to start very soon. I am also delighted to give him my reassurance that I will discuss the issue that he has raised about the youth offending team with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), to see whether there are any steps that can be taken.

Criminal Trials (Admissible Evidence)

Vera Baird: What plans he has to make the products of telephone taps admissible evidence in criminal trials.

Paul Goggins: There are no plans to do so at present, although the House will be aware from previous debates that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has this matter under review.

Vera Baird: I am grateful for that answer. It is usually said that phone tap material cannot be admitted in court because of operational secrecy, but it is admitted in almost every other jurisdiction without apparent damage being done. Indeed, some British-based international criminals have been convicted here because the foreign end of their operation was tapped and the foreign taps were put into evidence here. In a recent case in Cleveland—my own police authority—there simply was no other evidence. Although the phone taps were somewhere between strong and conclusive, the case collapsed. We are trying to bear down on crime, so should not proper use be made of this valuable material?

Paul Goggins: My hon. and learned Friend, as ever, makes an interesting point, and it is one of those that the review to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred will be taking into account. As she mentioned, the United States and most European Union countries already admit such evidence in the way that she suggests, but the balanced judgment that the review must make is whether telephone taps, if we allowed them to be used as evidence, would produce a better outcome than the current system. Of course, the current system uncovers essential evidence that leads to prosecutions and, even more importantly, the prevention of serious crime. All those issues will be weighed in the balance in the review, which will report in due course.

Crispin Blunt: While I welcome the balance that the Minister is bringing to the issue, will he weigh in that balance the case of Major Milos Stankovic, whose career in the British armed services was seriously harmed by, I understand, American intelligence intercepts that were wilfully misunderstood? That led to his career being ruined when all he was doing was carrying out his proper duties as directed by the general for whom he was working for the United Nations in Serbia. That is a good example of the dangers of relying on such intercepts. Will the Minister bear that in mind during the review?

Paul Goggins: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to show concern for somebody whose career allegedly was seriously damaged. The experience that he outlines to the House is of course the kind that will be taken into account by the review.

Chris Bryant: The Minister seems to have already answered his own question about whether the review will provide a change. In the light of the publication of Rio Ferdinand's telephone bills on the front page of many newspapers last weekend, may I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that there is strong security around the process of phone tapping? Will he also consider the issue of how text messages as well as telephone conversations are made admissible in court?

Paul Goggins: Again, all this will be taken into account by the review. It is important that we consider the role of text messages, which are a form of telephone communication. They will also be taken into account by the review, although bringing Rio Ferdinand into these considerations is probably slightly wide of the mark. However, you have not ruled so, Mr. Speaker, and I shall conclude there.

Police Authority Funding

David Heath: What his policy is on limiting police authority council tax increases.

Fiona Mactaggart: The use of reserve capping powers in England is a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister. We are clear about the fact that the trend in council tax rises is not sustainable, which is why the Government have announced that, if necessary, we may use our capping powers in 2004–05.
	We hope that capping will not be necessary for any police authority. The public rightly expect continued improvement in policing services. I expect police authorities to set budgets next year that ensure further improvements without placing excessive burdens on the local taxpayer.

David Heath: That was an exercise in wishful thinking if I ever heard one. The police authorities themselves estimate that next year the average council tax increase will be 15 per cent. just so that they can stand still—and that comes on top of the 24.5 per cent. actual average increase last year.
	The Minister cannot have it both ways. Is it her policy that there should be unacceptable increases in council tax, or is it her policy that there should be unacceptable reductions in police numbers?

Fiona Mactaggart: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman wants the rates to be capped.
	Central Government have substantially increased the resources available for policing. There has been a 30 per cent. increase since 1999–2000—an 18 per cent. increase in real terms. There has also been a substantial increase in the local contribution, partly because local communities have expected and demanded more policing. Moreover, the Government have delivered more police officers on our streets: there have been 155 extra officers in Avon and Somerset in the last few months alone.

Peter Pike: Along with other Lancashire Members, I met representatives of Lancashire police force on Friday. While welcoming all that the Government have done in so many respects over the past few years, they gave us a blueprint of what they believe Lancashire policing needs in the years ahead. It would mean a massive increase in the police budget.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with financing the police by means of council tax is that people tend to look at the total tax demand and the overall increase? In my area there are three tiers: the police authority, Lancashire county council and Burnley district council. The gearing of the tax was worked out following the Ribble Valley by-election—which Labour lost many years ago—to replace the poll tax, and has resulted in an unfair system of taxation.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right. As he will recall from his experience as a local authority leader, it behoves an administration to put the best possible case for extra resources, and I am sure that that is what his local police force has done. He is also right to point to the consequences of gearing, whereby an extra 1 per cent. on the council precept for police spending requires a 4 per cent. increase in the amount charged to the local citizen. That system was introduced by the Conservative party, and the citizens of my hon. Friend's constituency are still suffering as a result.

David Cameron: Is not one of the factors pushing up the police element of the council tax, especially in the south of England, the difficulty of recruiting and retaining officers? Is that not made even more difficult when officers are poached by forces in lower-cost areas or by the Met? I know that the Minister took an interest in this matter in her former incarnation. What thought has she given to a system of transfer fee payments, whereby the Thames Valley force and others in the south of England could at least recoup some of the cost of training those officers?

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a constituency Member, I am concerned about that. As a result of my concern, and concern expressed by chief constables in the south-east, additional allowances of £2,000 were introduced for Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Surrey and Thames Valley for officers recruited after the 1994 change in the payment system, and allowances of £1,000 for those in Bedfordshire, Hampshire and Sussex. That is one way of helping authorities to recruit and retain officers. We have also established the 30-plus scheme to encourage officers to stay on so that forces can retain experienced members.
	We do not intend to pursue the hon. Gentleman's proposal on transfer fees, but we will work with police forces to help them deal with recruitment and retention issues. That has already proved successful, which is why we now have record numbers of police officers in forces throughout the country.

Prison Education

Lawrie Quinn: What steps he is taking to increase the opportunities for prisoners to find employment after release.

Paul Goggins: The Prison Service is investing £14.5 million a year in its custody to work initiative. A growing partnership with Jobcentre Plus has led to a number of initiatives, including the extension of employment and benefits surgeries across the prison estate.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that often it is the probation service that is at the front end in terms of rehabilitating former offenders and getting them back into proper employment, and that the problem that they often face is that the key skills, the literacy and numeracy skills, that they need to undertake a profitable existence in society are lacking? Has the Home Office any plans to talk to learning and skills councils to try to generate local partnerships with organisations such as the probation service in Scarborough and Whitby, which is doing very well and could do even better with a stronger partnership in that respect?

Paul Goggins: I can confirm that the probation service is seeking to develop partnerships of that kind, as is the Prison Service. Last year, 40,000 literacy and numeracy qualifications were gained in prison. Indeed, last year, one in 10 of every basic skills qualification gained anywhere in the country was gained in a prison. Better qualified people coming out of prison stand a better chance of getting a job and staying out of trouble.

George Osborne: As the Minister well knows, I have the second largest female prison in my constituency and, despite the best efforts of local people, too little is done to help those female prisoners on their release into the community, often in the Manchester area. Does he agree that we need to do much more to help female prisoners, whose lives are often a complete mess before they go to prison? What initiatives has he considered undertaking as the new Prisons Minister?

Paul Goggins: Women leaving Styal prison and indeed prisoners leaving any prison need a great deal of support, sometimes appropriate drug treatment or mentoring support, for example, but in particular they need help with education and training in order to get their lives back in order and to enhance their opportunities for gaining employment and a wage that will take them increasingly away from crime.

Rob Marris: Education is key to rehabilitating prisoners on their release. The last annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons stated that the amount spent per capita on young people in the secure estate was £1,800. That compares with an equivalent figure for secondary schools of £3,200. Even allowing for a different way of calculating those figures, the discrepancy is immense: per capita, only about 60 per cent. of what is spent in secondary schools is spent in the secure estate. Will my hon. Friend look into that discrepancy and address the problem?

Paul Goggins: It is unfair to make that direct comparison. I think that my hon. Friend admitted as much, but it is important that we continue to increase the amount of education and training that is available for juveniles in custody, and we continue to do that.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister said that good education and training programmes could be delivered in prison. Does he agree that it becomes impossible to deliver such programmes in an overcrowded environment? As the prison population at 74,000 is 8,000 over the certified normal accommodation, and as the Government's own projections are that, by 2006, on a conservative estimate, it will rise to 88,000, with only 1,720 places currently projected in the pipeline, how on earth are we going to prevent a serious crisis that will make training and education impossible?

Julian Brazier: Answer.

Paul Goggins: I will answer the question, which is that at the moment we are expanding the prison estate by adding 2,800 places in existing prisons, building two new prisons and making use of home detention curfew. About 3,600 people are currently on home detention curfew who otherwise would be in prison, so we are constantly looking at the size of the prison population and we are taking all the necessary measures to deal with those pressures.

James Purnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that community sentencing can play a key role in helping to rehabilitate people because they can develop new skills while helping their community, and that it is a win-win situation for the community both because it gets something back from prisoners and because it can see those people putting something back into the community to make up for their original crime?

Paul Goggins: I agree absolutely. I have made it clear on many occasions that one of the tasks that we face is rebalancing correctional services, so that we make much greater use of community penalties. They can, with the right people, have a great impact. We should be using tagging as much as possible, for example, in association with other forms of intervention such as drug treatment, better education and so forth, to deal with all the people who have gone to prison for very short periods far more effectively in the community.

Identity Cards

Simon Thomas: What estimate he has made of (a) the costs of introducing identity cards and (b) the annual revenue and capital costs of such a scheme for each of the next five years.

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is precisely the analysis and verification of the matters that he asks about that I have been working on for the past 18 months. Indeed, I referred to that work in July of last year, when I made a statement to the House and launched a consultation. I know that he will forgive me if I avoid infringing the right of Cabinet colleagues to make final decisions by not giving him the details this afternoon.

Simon Thomas: Unfortunately, I cannot forgive him for that omission, because I really want to know how much this system will cost the taxpayer. We now know that identity fraud accounts for only 5 per cent. of the problems that have arisen in respect of benefits, yet the costs being talked about in the press are huge, for a system that will be neither effective nor efficient. Will the Home Secretary please drop this back-door tax on our identities, and if he is determined to press ahead with it, will he at least do what other European countries with such systems have done and ally it to a written constitution, so that the right balance of freedoms and responsibilities is struck for our citizens?

David Blunkett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity—I would never have imagined that getting the European constitution or individual constitutions into this question was manageable, so well done. The truth is that whether or not we go ahead with an identification scheme, there will be substantial costs—similar to costs for ID cards—for biometrics, for proper verification of passports, and, through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, for proper verification of driving licences. When we have discussed the matter in Cabinet, I shall be very happy to present the detail and to explain where we go from here, because one way or the other we shall be going forward.

Neil Gerrard: In looking at—

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend needs an identity card.

Neil Gerrard: I still have an identity card, which I was issued with in 1942. In looking at the costs of developing an ID card system, is my right hon. Friend examining developing a new database from scratch? Does he accept that if we try to build on existing databases, such as the DVLA's, which were not designed for the purpose of proving identity and are known to be insecure, we will be spending a great deal of money on a system that will be flawed from day one?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right to draw this matter to the House's attention. There are two separate issues: the process by which people would obtain cards and the mechanisms in place to deal with it; and the database itself, which will be crucial if biometrics and cards with chips—including future passport cards and driving licence cards—are to work effectively. In such a scheme, dovetailing the citizens' information project, which the Treasury has been working on, with the revision and refinement of the national insurance system will also be crucial. I look forward to being able to return to the House in the weeks ahead with an answer as to which of the routes we will take.

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Home Secretary agree that although citizens rightly expect a great deal from the state and from taxpayers, taxpayers have an equal right to be able to ascertain the identities of those citizens who wish to claim benefits? I wish him well in his battle with the Treasury over this argument, and will he impart to the House his chances of actually winning it?

David Blunkett: I am all in favour of ensuring that people who are entitled to benefits and services get them, and that those who are not do not. However, for the avoidance of doubt I should like to make it clear that I am not in a battle with the Treasury. We have sometimes had rigorous discussions in the past six and a half years; in this instance, we are having very amicable and helpful discussions.

Police Racism

Jim Cunningham: What steps are being taken to tackle racism in the police.

Elfyn Llwyd: If he will make a statement on the potential role of whistleblowing in tackling alleged racism in police forces.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety has already made it clear that we believe unequivocally that racism is unacceptable wherever it occurs, but particularly in the police service. That is why we introduced the new recruitment and assessment procedure, which took effect in 13 forces last May and is being rapidly extended across the country. That is why we are working with chief constables to ensure that failure on only one of the seven competences in respect of race and diversity, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety referred earlier, will mean that someone cannot have a job. Above all, we must use the new assessment centre to ensure that those doing the assessment are properly trained.
	On Question 15, section 37 of last year's Police Reform Act 2002 gives the necessary protection to police officers and those working in the service to be able to use adequately the right of whistleblowers to tell the truth about what is going on in the service.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I appreciate the fact that the police are introducing a new system, based on the seven criteria, for entering the police force. However, since the incidents of the behaviour of police recruits—albeit a minority—have been revealed, what reaction has he had from the ethnic minorities throughout the country?

David Blunkett: Quite understandably, one of sheer horror. I have been working with the National Black Police Association since before the film was shown, having attended its annual conference. First, I want to ensure that attitudes within the service are changed and that the diversity of our communities is respected. Secondly, when evidence is brought forward, I hope that through identification from within the force itself, rather than simply through the media, people will have the wherewithal and the confidence to bring that forward and senior officers will be prepared to take decisive action.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that the Home Secretary and every hon. Member will agree that the police do a difficult and dangerous job and need all the support that they can get, and I am sure that we all agree also that racism is a minority interest within police forces. Having said that, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the statutory provision for whistleblowing, but is there not now a case for changing the culture? One of the ingredients of a successful force is the camaraderie, and one ingredient of that is individuals often keeping quiet when they should not when something wrong is picked up. In those circumstances, would it be possible to encourage police authorities and police forces to ensure that any whistleblowing incident can go ahead without any adverse come-back on the individual concerned? We really need to change the culture.

David Blunkett: I would agree that the culture is critically important not simply in terms of people's behaviour towards each other, but in changing hearts and minds. People should not only refrain from using abhorrent language, but actually change their real attitude and actions. That applies to gender as much as to race. We all, to make the hon. Gentleman's point, have an obligation to do so, not just in terms of public services, but in respect of attitudes within political parties and within communities.

Parmjit Dhanda: Is my right hon. Friend aware of allegations in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday about a detective who is responsible for investigating racially motivated crimes? According to the newspaper, she is married to an active member of the British National party and they have a bust of Adolf Hitler in their living room. Her husband has also made claims about the holocaust being exaggerated. Will my right hon. Friend take any measures that he can to ensure that that person is regarded as an inappropriate officer for doing that job in the police force?

David Blunkett: That description should lead to immediate investigation of the facts and action being taken, which also applies to the eight officers—in the forces to which they have moved as well as the Greater Manchester force—after last Tuesday's broadcast. However, I do not want to rely on revelations by the media, but on proper investigation, proper analysis and action taken by senior managers within the police service to ensure that we do not have such incidents in the future.

Angela Watkinson: Did the permanent secretary write to the BBC before the showing of the television programme that showed racism in the police force, and was that letter an attempt at censorship?

David Blunkett: The permanent secretary wrote on 12 September to raise a number of issues, not having seen the film footage or the other material, which was not disclosed to the Home Office or Greater Manchester police, despite the fact that Greater Manchester police—on behalf of the chief constable and the Home Office—had requested it three times. He wrote to the director-general of the BBC to make a number of salient points, which in no way undermined the absolutely critical nature of the final broadcast, the material revealed, and the central issue of rooting out racism. One of the points that he raised was that it is critically important that members of the public dealing with the police service should know that the people they are dealing with are bona fide police officers and not members of the BBC staff.

IRA Decommissioning

Quentin Davies: I beg leave to ask an urgent question about the information given to the two Governments by General de Chastelain in the context of the Northern Ireland peace process and the decommissioning last week.

Jane Kennedy: As both have made clear, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have been able to learn more about the decommissioning event than was set out either in the brief statement issued last Tuesday by the two members of the Decommissioning Commission, General de Chastelain and Mr. Andrew Sens, or in the press conference given by them at Hillsborough that day. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had a long meeting with General de Chastelain and Mr. Sens at Hillsborough. It was much longer than the press conference. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach were, in consequence, left with a greater sense of the nature of the decommissioning event than would be apparent from the statement and the press conference alone. However, as the Prime Minister emphasised in this place last Wednesday, the commissioners did not provide him with all the information in their possession, and given to them in confidence, about the decommissioning event. As General de Chastelain has made clear, the confidentiality constraints imposed on him precluded further disclosure.

Quentin Davies: The whole House knows that none of this is remotely the fault or responsibility of the right hon. Lady, and we all have the greatest sympathy with the invidious position in which she now finds herself.
	Let me quote the words that the Prime Minister used about General de Chastelain at the Dispatch Box last Wednesday:
	"He gives certain information—not the full information, but certain information—to us, as the two Governments. Although we are not at liberty to disclose that information without his permission, we are working hard to try to find a way in which we can do so, because I believe, on the basis of what we know, that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."
	The purport of the Prime Minister's remarks was perfectly clear. First, he said that General de Chastelain had given him and the Irish Government information about the decommissioning that went beyond what General de Chastelain had made public at his press conference on Tuesday afternoon. Secondly, the Prime Minister made it clear that that incremental information was so significant that, if known, it would alter the public's perception of the event, in that
	"people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]
	I was surprised when I heard the Prime Minister's words. I know that General de Chastelain has always interpreted very strictly his obligation of confidentiality on these occasions, and he has always said—to me and to others who have asked him about this over the past two years—that that obligation is absolute and applies to the two Governments as much as to anyone else. Nevertheless, it was the Prime Minister of my country who was speaking, and he was speaking not casually but categorically at the Dispatch Box. So I believed immediately what he said, and supposed that, contrary to my own previous understanding and expectations, the rules had somehow been changed, or that General de Chastelain had somehow made an exception to them.
	Unfortunately—very unfortunately—and very regrettably for the people of Northern Ireland, for the peace process, for the credibility of the Prime Minister and, most of all, for the pride that we all like to take in the honesty of our political process and the way in which our democracy works, General de Chastelain has now made it quite clear that he never gave any additional information to the Prime Minister—or to the two Governments by any other means—let alone incremental information that could have had the significance that the Prime Minister claimed for it. General de Chastelain does not, I believe, give press interviews, but over the past two days he has said that to several people in Northern Ireland, including Bob McCartney QC, a former Member of the House, who at my request sent me an affidavit to that effect over the weekend. I have also seen the transcript of General de Chastelain's meeting on Thursday with several hon. Members from the Democratic Unionist party. Moreover, General de Chastelain said exactly the same thing to me on the telephone this morning.
	General de Chastelain has had a most distinguished career as a Canadian and NATO officer, as Chief of the Canadian Defence Staff and as Canadian ambassador to the USA. He was chosen for his present role for his judgment, his integrity and his political objectivity. It is inconceivable—and would be entirely without motive—that General de Chastelain would choose to impugn that reputation by telling and sustaining a momentous and blatant lie at this stage of his career.
	There is no question of misunderstanding, unfortunately, and no question of memory being eroded by time; the Prime Minister's conversation with General de Chastelain and the general's press conference were held only 24 hours before the Prime Minister's words in the House, which I have quoted. There is no chance that some non-substantive remark made to the Prime Minister during the conversation to which the Minister of State has just referred, and not repeated exactly at the press conference, constituted the additional information to which the Prime Minister referred. The Prime Minister himself said that that additional information was such that it had the power to alter the public's judgment of the whole episode. That makes the point absolutely clear.
	Nor is it possible, as a No. 10 press spokesman has apparently offered, that
	"we found ourselves in an absurd position whereby we were unable to explain in lay terms just how significant that event was. The usage of expressions such as 'heavy, medium and light ordnance' obviously meant something to military people but we would acknowledge that it did not carry the same conviction for ordinary members of the public. It was precisely that circle which we recognised"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an urgent question. The hon. Gentleman should be asking questions, not making a speech to bolster a case.

Quentin Davies: I understand that, Mr. Speaker.
	General de Chastelain defined the terms precisely at his press conference, so there was nothing new at all. Is it good enough to say as, apparently, Government officials did to the Belfast Telegraph that "Mr. Blair was" not "misleading anyone" because
	"when he said he 'knew', this was in the nature of an 'educated guess' or an 'informed judgment'"?
	How can the Prime Minister have been making a guess? Anybody may make a guess, but the Prime Minister said that he was making a judgment on the basis of inside information that—he said—he believed that others would share if they had that information.
	I leave the House to decide whether the Prime Minister can hide by saying, as his press spokesman apparently suggested this morning, that he is
	"not going to breach the confidentiality"
	of the conversation that he held with General de Chastelain. General de Chastelain has been perfectly happy to confirm to anyone who asks him that he gave no additional information to the Prime Minister.
	Is not it clear that we have an all too simple choice? Either we can believe General de Chastelain or we can believe the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must finish.

Jane Kennedy: We are aware that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to General de Chastelain, who has also spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The position, however, remains as set out in the answer that I have just given. It is entirely unsurprising that the Prime Minister was left with a greater sense of the nature of the event as a result of his lengthy discussions with the commissioners.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at this moment working in Northern Ireland to take forward the process and to continue the progress that has been made, notwithstanding the current setbacks. Indeed, I joined him in doing so this morning. I was called back to answer this question, and I have been faced with nothing more than a party political point-scoring exercise, while the Conservative party is imploding around the hon. Gentleman.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall how, time and again, when we were in opposition, we gave sustained support to the Conservative Government when they attempted to start a peace process? Would it not be helpful if the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave such support to the present peace process, instead of trying to undermine it at every possible opportunity?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for making that point. This is a matter of confidence between the parties, not a process orchestrated by the Government. We have done all that we can to facilitate engagement between the parties, and we came close on Tuesday to a point of great advance. We will continue to do all that we can to facilitate engagement.

Simon Hughes: Does the Minister agree that, at this moment, as so often in Northern Ireland, the important thing is that we try to find a constructive way forward? Does she accept that there was a very good statement last week—the statement of General de Chastelain—but that, thereafter, things sadly fell apart because of the nature of what was clearly a bilateral agreement? Do the Government now propose to include the other parties to the Good Friday agreement—including parties such as the Alliance party, which assisted greatly at an earlier stage in very difficult times—so that there can be an open and transparent agreement, engaging all the political parties, that can deliver a result in the days ahead? Does she agree with what Mr. Gerry Adams said last week, when he said that the statement made by General de Chastelain indicated that paragraph 13 of the joint declaration about permanent cessation of activity has now been delivered and is available in Northern Ireland? Can she give us a date by which she hopes that the second half—the agreement between all the parties—will be delivered? Will she and her colleagues do everything they can to ensure that it will be delivered before the end of this year?

Jane Kennedy: Devolved government was suspended last year because of a catastrophic breakdown of trust and confidence between two of the parties. Restoring the confidence between them is the key requirement for moving forward and the Government have been facilitating that process, but we would not have made the great advances that we have made in recent times without the collective efforts of all the pro-agreement parties. I pay tribute to all of them for their courage and commitment. Without, for example, the SDLP's commitment to the policing process several years ago, we would be much less far forward now.
	On the hon. Gentleman's last point about paragraph 13, we need to move forward to a point where we can develop that confidence between the parties. If we need to achieve disclosure to do that, we need to do so in a way that does not undermine the position of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and that promotes the confidence necessary for future acts of decommissioning to proceed, and the hon. Gentleman is right: that involves doing so by agreement.

Kate Hoey: Does the Minister agree that, no matter what the Prime Minister intended to say, what he actually said caused problems in Northern Ireland for some of the parties and a general feeling that people were being misled? Is it not really important when anything is said in Northern Ireland that, if the Prime Minister knows something, people in Northern Ireland should know it too?

Jane Kennedy: I do not agree with the thrust of the point that my hon. Friend makes. It would be much better to go forward into elections in a positive atmosphere. We have done all that we can to help the parties. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that any hon. Member is misleading the House. He will withdraw the remark that I heard him make.

Quentin Davies: I was simply picking up on the word that hon. Lady used in asking her question. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. So long as the hon. Gentleman assures me that he was not referring to any hon. Member.

Quentin Davies: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have not used that word in connection with any hon. Member.

Jane Kennedy: The lengthy discussion that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had with the decommissioning commissioners last week left them with a far greater sense of the scale and nature of the act of decommissioning than it was possible to disclose in the statement or in the press conference. We should not forget the significance of that event last week, which was described as a substantial act that put beyond use weapons that, in the words of Mr. Sens, would have caused death and destruction on a massive scale. The House should note that and welcome such a step.

Martin Smyth: The House will be aware that a degree of uncertainty about the use of English language has existed for some time. While one would not necessarily accuse people of telling lies, one might think that they would be fit company for Ananias and Sapphira. The Minister referred to agreement between the parties. Is that not an agreement between the then interlocutor for Sinn Fein-IRA and General de Chastelain, which has put a block on this matter, and which we have been led to believe is written in law? Furthermore, does part of the trouble arise from further revelations in Northern Ireland that the general may have been kept incommunicado, to put it mildly, for many hours before he was able to return to Belfast?

Jane Kennedy: It is disappointing for all sides that the Provisional IRA chose to impose the confidentiality on the general that led him to be unable to disclose the scale and the detail of the event. That lack of transparency has caused the speculation about which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) spoke earlier. I do not propose to add to that speculation this afternoon. We are bending all our efforts, however, to continue to make progress in what I recognise is a difficult time.

Kevin Brennan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we need, as well as building confidence between the parties in Northern Ireland, is a restoration of confidence between the parties in this House? Does she also agree that that would be best served by the kind of patient, calm approach that she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have taken in these matters, rather than the hot-headed emotional spasms of the Conservative party?

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is for those who portray themselves as opponents of the agreement to explain to the House and to the country how they would advance our current position. They do not tell us what they would do, and the attitudes that we hear from them would have meant no advance at all in Northern Ireland.

Brian Mawhinney: As a supporter of the agreement, is the right hon. Lady aware that I was in the House and heard the Prime Minister convey to all of us clearly that he and the Taoiseach had factual information that the rest of us did not have? I have noted that three times today she has used the phrase that the Prime Minister had a sense of what was happening. May I therefore ask her a straight, simple question? Did General de Chastelain give the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach factual information that he did not put in his statement?

Jane Kennedy: The general put into his statement and into the public domain in his press conference what he was able to put under the confidentiality agreement that he had made with the Provisional IRA. In the lengthy discussion that he had with the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, however, the two commissioners were able to convey and build confidence in both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that the event that they had seen was substantial and significantly more than had happened in the past.

Ian Paisley: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I gave notice that I wanted to raise this issue on a point of order, but that has been superseded by this short statement.
	Will the Minister tell me when General de Chastelain made any arrangements whatsoever about secrecy or confidentiality? This House made those arrangements when it set up the commission. I opposed them, but the people who are shouting so loudly today did not oppose them—they voted for them. The first point that should be made clear is that the House is responsible for the secrecy and confidentiality and only the IRA can raze that. The IRA could have done that and said, "Yes, go ahead", but it said, "We're not going to do that; we're keeping to our confidentiality."
	Will the Minister tell the House about the two officers—one from the American army and one from the Canadian army—whom her Government wanted to accompany the two commissioners but who the IRA turned down as well? From the very beginning, the IRA was not going to give the opportunity for any real declaration of what took place.
	When the Prime Minister made his statement at Hillsborough, I met General de Chastelain with my MPs and asked him whether I knew anything less than what he had told the two Prime Ministers. He said, "No, you know nothing less. They only know what they were told by me, and you heard my statement. I couldn't give them any more information." I said, "Suppose that you are pressed by the Governments to give more information", and he said, "If I am pushed by the Government, I will resign because I am bound under the commission that set me up and confidentiality."
	The Minister said that we should all be happy—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ian Paisley: One final question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not one more—the Minister must have a chance to reply.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the opportunity to impose confidentiality on the decommissioning commissioners was allowed by the law underpinning the work of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. If he has had the opportunity to talk to the general, he will have had the same opportunity that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach had. Members of his party have acknowledged the scale of the event that was witnessed last Tuesday. Members of his party who will be fighting the election have acknowledged that an event of significance happened. I think that Members on both sides of the House should note that.

Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Andrew MacKay: As the Minister will be aware, I am a strong supporter of the Belfast agreement. Will she accept from me that trust is a commodity in very short supply in the Province, especially in the Unionist community, and particularly as the four hand-written pledges that the Prime Minister gave on the eve of the agreement referendum were subsequently not met? Will she assure us that after the mistake that I think that the Prime Minister made when he spoke from the Dispatch Box during Prime Minister's Question Time last Wednesday, everyone will be far more cautious? If the trust gets any worse, we will not make any progress at a vital time for the Province.

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's position and the support that he has given to the agreement, and I hear what he says. It is true that we should all bend all our efforts to grow and develop confidence and trust among parties if progress is to continue to be made.

David Wilshire: During the lengthy discussions between the general and the two Prime Ministers to which the right hon. Lady referred, did the general pass on any additional facts to the Prime Ministers?

Jane Kennedy: The general did not break the rules of confidentiality or the promise of confidentiality imposed on him by the Provisional IRA. Although those rules might be seen as a stumbling block at this moment, they have allowed a series of acts of decommissioning that, in my estimate, would not have taken place without them.

Andrew Robathan: The Minister speaks of trust and confidence. Do not two things arise out of this sorry business? The first is that it is difficult to have any confidence in a decommissioning process that takes place in secret. Is it not up to the Government to ensure that that is done in public, with transparency? The second issue is why, in the light of all the evidence and experience to the contrary, the Government persist in trusting the IRA and Sinn Fein, which are inextricably linked?

Jane Kennedy: I have said a couple of times that last Wednesday's event has been acknowledged as significant. The general explained a range of the detail when he shared with us what he could. We know that the amount of weapons was substantial and that what was put permanently out of use was sufficient to take out of circulation things that would have caused death and destruction on a massive scale. That process and event last week was significant. It should not be forgotten or lost among all the noise, sound and fury that has been created as a result of the speculation that arose because the general was unable to be clearer and to give more detail. We are seeking to make progress on that. Had he been able to be clearer about the detail, that event and the statements might have been sufficient to allow confidence to grow among the parties.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister knows that I, too, am a supporter of the Good Friday agreement. Does she not agree, however, that trust has again been damaged by the loose use of terminology and words by the Prime Minister? In those circumstances, the one thing I have not heard from the Minister, which would go some way to restoring the situation, is an apology on behalf of the Government? Would it not be a sign of a mature Government for them to apologise now to the House and to those people who consider themselves seriously misled by what the Prime Minister said?

Jane Kennedy: I think that Opposition Members are choosing to pretend that they were seriously misled. Quite honestly, I have answered the question many times. The Prime Minister did not mislead the House. As I said, the position remains as I set out in the answer I gave at the outset. It is unsurprising that following that discussion, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had a clear sense of the scale and nature of the act of decommissioning. Hon. Members will want them to take the process forward and to wish them well as they do so.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You made it clear in the urgent question that it would be wrong for any hon. Member to impute dishonour to another Member of the House, yet on two occasions Conservative Members, the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary and the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, shouted from a sedentary position that the Minister was speaking lies. I presume that you were not able to hear that. On such an issue, is it not all the more important that we return to the old traditions of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should leave those matters to me.

Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to behave himself. He should not shout across the Floor of the House when the Speaker rises.

Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sir, as leader of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, I want to make it perfectly clear that no member of my party said what the Minister reported us as saying. She mixed us up with the member of another party who said something like that. He is not a member of my party. I find it ill for the Minister to malign our people when she should be answering the question on everyone's mind in Northern Ireland. We are going back to killings in Northern Ireland and all we are given is a guess. We are being asked to rely on an educated guess for our future security.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister will have heard what the leader of the Democratic Unionist party has had to say.

Iris Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I gave you notice. I have been informed that other Members and I have had appointments with Departments cancelled because of the election to another institution in Northern Ireland. Can you help us to ensure that our constituents are not disadvantaged by the election campaign, because it has no bearing on how we currently perform our roles in this House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but Ministers will have heard what the hon. Lady had to say. Opposition Day

[20th Allotted Day]

Defence Policy

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
	That this House believes in the importance of European nations' building up their military capabilities to contribute more to European and global defence and security through NATO; notes that the 'Berlin Plus' agreement provides the EU with assured access to NATO assets to plan and conduct military operations under NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who is always a European military officer; condemns proposals for the European Union to conduct the planning and leadership of operations independent of NATO means and capabilities; further notes that this represents a threat to NATO, which was developed in the 1998 St. Malo Declaration and would be given superiority under the draft EU constitution; and further believes that such proposals discriminate against non-EU members of NATO, decouple EU security policies from NATO and duplicate existing NATO structures and assets without increasing real military capability in any way whatsoever.
	The security of our citizens, of our country and of the world is the first and most important duty of Government. The security challenges that we face today are very different from the days of the cold war, and they will continue to change. The end of the cold war was greeted with relief, but that relief has proved misplaced. Many expected the end of the superpower stand-off to herald a new international order; instead we have a new international disorder, where the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism are the main threats, and they arise from the new instability of whole regions, civil strife and the rise of rogue states.
	No single country can achieve security in isolation. Security can be delivered only through an alliance. So if security is the Government's first and most important duty, the first and most important question that we must answer is this: in the new post-cold war security environment, what kind of alliance offers the best and safest prospect for our security? That leads us to the crux of the debate: is European and American security divisible? The answer, of course, is no.
	The security, freedom and prosperity of Europe and north America are as inextricably linked as ever. The US and Canadian commitment to the preservation of peace and security in Europe is in their national interests as well as ours, so the north American military commitment in Europe must be maintained. Therefore, the only alliance that can best guarantee security is a transatlantic alliance and, moreover, a proven alliance. That alliance is NATO. Maybe the Secretary of State is with me up to this point in my remarks. [Interruption.] It might help if he had been listening instead of treating this subject lightly.
	NATO is founded on the principle that European and north American security is indivisible, and it works. NATO not only won the cold war but has adapted to the post-cold war world. NATO enabled Europe to pacify the Balkans. But NATO must continue to transform, and it is doing so. The NATO summit in Prague last November implemented a leaner, more efficient, effective and deployable command structure. Furthermore, a 20,000-strong NATO response force was established. Made up mainly of European forces, it provides NATO with a credible, high-readiness, fully trained and equipped combined arms multinational expeditionary force, able to deploy quickly and undertake the full spectrum of NATO tasks wherever required.

Geoff Hoon: indicated assent.

Bernard Jenkin: The Secretary of State is nodding. He is now listening, which is an encouraging sign.

Denis MacShane: The response force was part of our policy.

Bernard Jenkin: The Government do not like it when we agree with what they say, but let us see whether they are delivering what they say they agree with. There is much more to do. We need more European capability in NATO to match the threats that we face, but we must resist anything that undermines its cohesion. The Government say that they understand these things, and the Prime Minister said on Thursday:
	"We don't want duplication and we certainly don't want competition with NATO."
	The test that the House must apply to the Government's policy is simple—does it bear out those wishes?

Michael Clapham: The hon. Gentleman says that NATO needs a European capability, so does he agree that NATO is a basket of resources, including a European resource, and that that flexibility is bound to strengthen rather than weaken it?

Bernard Jenkin: It depends how that basket is constructed and whether that involves duplication and competition with NATO. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Prime Minister, who said on Thursday:
	"We don't want duplication and we certainly don't want competition with NATO."
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman endorses that—[Interruption.] Well, that does not concur with what the Prime Minister said.
	The test that the House must apply to the Government's policy is simple: does it duplicate, and does it create competition with, NATO? Let us look first at the Franco-British declaration at St. Malo in 1998, which launched the concept of an autonomous EU defence, and resulted from a personal initiative by the Prime Minister to soothe EU leaders who were annoyed that Britain would not join the euro. It was, however, immediately obvious that that created a second rival security alliance in Europe—the very competition that the Prime Minister says he is against. The Clinton Administration reacted with fury, and the then Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, railed against what she called the three Ds—duplication of NATO assets, discrimination against non-EU members of NATO and decoupling of European and north American security.
	In November 2001, the Prime Minister saw President Bush and assured him, in the President's own words,
	"that European defense would no way undermine NATO . . . that there would be joint command, and that planning would take place within NATO".
	Has the Prime Minister kept his word? Did he understand what he started at St. Malo? Even if he meant what he said, can he deliver those assurances without changing his policy? The answers to those three questions are categorically no, no and no. The matter should have been resolved in the EU-NATO agreement known as Berlin-plus, which was signed earlier this year. As our motion makes clear, it provides the EU with assured access to NATO assets to plan and conduct military operations under NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who is always a European military officer. If the Prime Minister believes that European and north American security is indivisible, what more could he ask for? If the EU wants to act militarily, it has all the necessary planning and command structures at its disposal as of right. There is no need for wasteful duplication or dangerous decoupling of security policy. Moreover, it took four long years to agree the settlement between NATO and the EU. The ink was hardly dry on the paper, however, when the Prime Minister met President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder in Berlin last month and agreed to the very competition that he says he is against. A published communiqué has not been released from that meeting, but there was a leak to a German newspaper—[Interruption.] Would the Secretary of State like to publish that communiqué? He shakes his head, so we are to believe that the three Heads of State met in Berlin and that no notes were taken, and that no statement or position was agreed. Of course we know that is not the case. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny it previously, so it is no good denying it now. He is changing his evidence again.
	The three Heads of State agreed that
	"the EU should have a common capability for the planning and leadership of operations independent of NATO means and capabilities."
	If that is not duplication, decoupling and competition with NATO, what is? It does not strengthen NATO; it undercuts it.
	Why is duplication of military planning so damaging? The job of a military planning HQ is not to run operations. That is done through the command chain. Military planners work up options, permutations and combinations and run different scenarios so that they can present a range of choices to the military commanders and politicians. NATO, at supreme headquarters allied powers Europe, or SHAPE, as it is known, provides the best multinational military planning capability in the world. Why would anyone in the EU wish to duplicate that? Can the Secretary of State answer that question?
	The only answer is that the Government really want to decouple NATO from the EU. Despite what they say, they want competition between the EU and NATO. There could be no clearer evidence of that ambition. [Hon. Members: "What evidence?"] I shall come to the evidence. The very principle of what the Prime Minister agreed with our EU partners does not contribute to our security, but undermines it. The Prime Minister, having started the process in St. Malo in 1998, is now incapable of stopping it, or is unwilling to do so.
	Which of the two faces of our Prime Minister should we believe? Can we believe the Prime Minister who makes promises to President Bush? Can we believe him when he says that he
	"will never put at risk NATO"?
	Is he sincere when he says:
	"No one wants to see European defence develop inconsistently with NATO"?
	That sounds like the promise of the two-timer in the morning, who says, "Of course I love you, darling." It is surely more reliable to study what the Prime Minister actually agrees on paper with his EU counterparts than to trust what he says.
	The joint declaration at St. Malo makes only cursory reference to NATO, but it launched
	"the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces"
	and
	"the means to decide to use them."
	The Nice summit conclusions of December 2000 reaffirmed the need for
	"operational planning for autonomous EU operations".
	The Franco-British summit conclusions from Le Touquet in February this year claimed:
	"The European Union now has the capacity to . . . conduct operations with or without recourse to NATO assets."
	The Secretary of State will tell us today, no doubt, that all this is in the process of being resolved. He will try to convince the House that those words on paper are not what they seem, and that whatever demands the Prime Minister faces, his pro-NATO statements will remain operational. True, the proposal for the construction of a EU military planning HQ at Tervuren in Belgium has been dropped, and the idea of an floating EU military headquarters has disappeared. However, Peter Struck, the German Defence Minister, conceded that no separate EU HQ is necessary, but read carefully all of what he said last week. He added:
	"For the time being, I'm in favour of putting it in SHAPE",
	so it is just a matter of time.
	Listen to what President Chirac is reported as saying in the International Herald Tribune on 22 October when he noted that
	"our British friends have reservations about the creation of a planning and operational headquarters . . . But we have decided to pursue this project because we think that there will not be a Europe without a defence capacity."
	It is as plain as day that the EU's defence ambitions will not stop at SHAPE. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister for Europe saying from a sedentary position, "It's all been shelved." May I read to him again what Peter Struck said? He said:
	"For the time being, I'm in favour of putting it in SHAPE".
	If the proposal is put on the shelf, it can be taken off the shelf again. What is written down anywhere to prevent the French and the Germans taking it off the shelf again? It is as plain as day that the EU's defence ambitions will not stop at SHAPE, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

John Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why every single NATO member, including our two north American allies, supports a European security and defence policy?

Bernard Jenkin: But they do not support—neither does the Prime Minister—the duplication and competition with NATO to which this policy is leading.

David Heathcoat-Amory: When I was in Washington last week, I had the chance to talk to members of the Administration about the subject. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—they are seriously alarmed by the text of the draft European constitution, which would allow Europe to go ahead with a European defence, including operational undertakings, without the permission or agreement of our north American allies. They are particularly alarmed that the White Paper issued by the Government does not promise to reverse those parts of the treaty text. My hon. Friend is right that the Government's assurances are completely hollow unless they make it a red line veto issue decisively to change the draft constitution from its present form.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. He will agree that it is an extraordinary turn of events that members of this American Administration, who are so personally grateful to the Prime Minister for his support during the Iraq war, should speak out in public to criticise the policy that he has been pursuing in Europe. Almost every member of the Administration to whom I have spoken has said, "We are extremely worried, but there is no way we are going to criticise Mr. Blair after he has been so helpful to us in Iraq." Despite that, they eventually blew a gasket when the Secretary of State attended the NATO ministerial meeting in Colorado Springs earlier this month: I understand that he was taken to task by Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. They are seriously concerned about the destabilising of NATO that is so against their and our European security interests.
	Last week, we obtained and released a remarkable document drafted in the German military high command, entitled, "From ESDP to a European Army".

Paul Keetch: It was in The Sun.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the hon. Gentleman—yes, we gave it to The Sun. I can assure him that we did not get it from The Sun. It was also in The Daily Telegraph.
	The document was drafted in July 2002 and released secretly among the German Government during spring 2003. The Minister for Europe, in a hastily dispatched letter to The Daily Telegraph, rather lamely protests that this is just another
	"round of anti-EU propaganda".
	That underlines the Government's determination to avoid a proper public debate on these issues. The document drafted in the German military high command is clearly reflected in the joint declaration on EU defence that was issued by the Heads of State of Germany, France, Luxembourg and Belgium in April. The Minister for Europe will recall that that was dubbed the "chocolate summit"; I seem to remember that the Secretary of State was highly critical of it at the time. As it was explicitly the policy of those four Governments, the Minister's denials are somewhat unconvincing. The Government's pathetic attempt to trash the document was not helped by the German Defence Minister, who said over the weekend:
	"There is no issue, no step, along the path of EU military integration that would be unthinkable for Germany to take . . . There is no topic that is taboo or beyond consideration, not now nor in the future."
	He goes on:
	"We are good Europeans and have nothing to fear over the issue of national sovereignty within integrated European military structures."
	He talked about "working around" British "taboos over these issues". There is evidence that he is working around them very successfully. The German paper, when describing its central premise, states:
	"A European Army legitimised and financed by the European Parliament is the visionary goal of German policy in the ESDP."
	The German Government have not denied that.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is guiding the House with admirable clarity through the thickets of public policy and he is rightly disdainful of the sedentary protestations of the Minister for Europe. Does he agree that a common defence policy, independent of NATO and in the European Union, requires the existence of a common identity, purpose and willingness to make equal sacrifices to achieve that purpose? Given that none of those conditions is currently satisfied, does he agree that such a policy is, at best, a dangerous illusion and at worst, a potential disaster?

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I believe that the European Union has tended to operate in that way. It has tended to try to create the framework for policy on which there is no agreement in the hope of creating agreement. It is an unwise policy, not least because it creates the expectation of an agreement when there is bound to be disagreement; otherwise, we would all have agreed on what to do about Iraq.

David Marshall: The hon. Gentleman talks about agreement, but I am puzzled by some of his comments. Has he read the Prime Minister's amendment? If so, with what parts does he disagree and why?

Bernard Jenkin: I shall explain why I disagree with the Government amendment later.
	Today, I shall place a copy of the document—in the original German for the benefit of the Minister for Europe and in translation so that he can check that we have had it accurately translated—in the Library for all to see. The most germane parts to the debate are comments on "an equal partnership" with the United States of America.
	It states that if NATO and the EU cannot agree on decisions,
	"then they would have to act independently from each other."
	Does the Secretary of State for Defence disagree with that statement? I believe that he agrees that that is his policy.
	The objective of German policy and that of the Secretary of State is duplication and competition between NATO and the European Union.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is making a commendable speech that could have been delivered to the Bundestag, but I am struggling to find its relevance to British Government policy or, perhaps more significantly, to that of the European Union. To correct his historical record, he will find that the German military high command was abolished in 1945.

Bernard Jenkin: That may be a matter of translation. Unlike the Minister for Europe, I do not speak fluent German and I am therefore happy to be corrected. However, that does not get the right hon. Gentleman off the hook of the substance of the policy.
	The British Government accepted the principle of EU military autonomy at St. Malo and afterwards. The key elements of the German paper are reflected in the draft EU constitution: a new European defence order, including a new European defence agency, defined by a framework of laws, ultimately justiciable by the European Court of Justice.
	The House can set no store by the Government's so-called red lines. The White Paper on the European constitution, which was published in September, shows the weakness and ambiguity of the Government's policy. The security of our nation will hang on the crucial phrases that
	"effective links to NATO are essential to the success of ESDP. We will not agree to anything that is contradictory to, or would replace, the security guarantee established through NATO."
	The only real red line here is the narrow security guarantee established through NATO's article 5. The Foreign Secretary narrowed that even further when he told the House that
	"it is unacceptable for us, for the EU . . . to aspire to provide a territorial defence commitment for Europe."—[Official Report, 20 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 375.]
	Territorial defence is hardly NATO's main task in the modern security environment. There is no red line about NATO remaining the cornerstone of our security in its wider sense, as was expressed in the Queen's Speech, for example. There is no red line to guarantee the independence of national defence policy, let alone to prohibit the creation of a European army.
	NATO today is Europe's defence and security alliance, but it is clearly the intention that the EU should compete with, duplicate and take over from NATO all its tasks and functions except the most residual. The Prime Minister protests that
	"there are people who want to pull me away from Europe, and people who want to pull me away from America."
	If he is feeling pulled hither and thither, he has nobody to blame but himself. In reality, neither America nor NATO can pull Britain away from Europe. However, the EU constitution, which
	"shall have primacy over the law of the Member States",
	would pull Britain away from our north American allies and from NATO if it were ever to come into effect.

Denis MacShane: This is perhaps a conversation rather than a heated debate, so it is kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way. Can he say how his arguments conform to the second paragraph of article 42 of the proposed constitutional treaty, which of course is not yet negotiated? It states:
	"The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework."
	Assuming that that article remains in the final constitutional treaty, it exactly guarantees the authority and centrality of NATO.

Bernard Jenkin: The key word is "obligations". If the Minister would like to come back to the Dispatch Box to describe the United Kingdom's obligations to NATO that the treaty respects, I shall listen to him. There are very few obligations under the NATO treaty—it is a commitment, but there is not much of an obligation. Even when article 5 is invoked, it remains essentially voluntary on the member states, not obligatory. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but it is absolutely true.
	The fundamental difference between the draft constitution and the NATO treaty is that the constitution will have the force of statute in our law whereas the NATO treaty does not. The obligations in that document will clearly become superior to those under the NATO treaty. Does the Minister for Europe want me to give way? That is game, set and match on that point, thank you very much.
	The European constitution declares that it will have supremacy over the law of the member states, so it will clearly have superiority in terms of its parity with the Atlantic alliance. The Prime Minister has either unwittingly walked into a trap of his own making or he is deliberately deceiving the British people about his real intention to divide the EU from NATO.
	The only way to protect NATO is to veto any such constitution and to insist that foreign, security and defence policy remain a matter for intergovernmental co-operation—not central co-ordination—completely separate from any institutions for making or interpreting laws. That is the fundamental problem with this constitution. It dissolves the three-pillar structure and folds the defence and security policy into the central pillar of the EU, which is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The Minister for Europe is still shaking his head, so I will divert from my text to make a particular point. Article I 15, entitled "The Common Foreign and Security Policy", in part 1 of the draft constitution, states
	"1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence.
	2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
	Does the Minister wish to dispute the fact that that article is justiciable by the European Court of Justice?

Denis MacShane: The language is taken directly from the Maastricht treaty. Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench with the hon. Gentleman voted for that, although he did not. [Interruption.] Oh, he did. I am sorry.
	I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with the second point. The constitutional treaty—whose final text we do not yet have; we are referring here to a draft—will be justiciable to the extent that it refers to what the European Union does, but I think the hon. Gentleman is making a lot of fuss about nothing when it comes to a solid commitment to NATO in this text, repeating Maastricht language that the House has endorsed.

Bernard Jenkin: I am afraid that the Minister has not answered my question. The fact is that in the Maastricht treaty none of the defence and foreign and security provisions is justiciable by the European Court, whereas this article is. That creates a gaping hole in all the assurances that the Government have given us over a long period, and in all the red lines that they have drawn.

Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman has yet to explain the Prime Minister's motive for embarking on this clandestine attempt to take us away from NATO. May I, however, make a specific point about the draft constitutional treaty? Article III-214, paragraph 4, in section 1, "The Common Security and Defence Policy", states
	"This Article shall not affect the rights and obligations resulting, for the Member States concerned, from the North Atlantic Treaty."
	It is stated clearly, in black and white, that the North Atlantic treaty remains paramount as part of the constitution.

Bernard Jenkin: Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman added his own interpretation at the end of his intervention. The article does not say "NATO remains paramount". It says that we shall respect the obligations of member states under NATO. First, the obligations under NATO are extremely limited compared with the obligations of membership of the European Union. Secondly, the obligations under NATO are only treaty obligations, while the obligations under the European Union have the force of statute. They will therefore tend to override our obligations under NATO, however limited they are.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may not have had time to look up the reference. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) is wrong. What he quoted relates only to article III-214, which concerns closer co-operation on mutual defence. It does not apply to the—in my view—more dangerous article on structure co-operation, which is about planning cells and separate headquarters in Europe that will be set up under the provisions of the constitution. References to the primacy of NATO do not apply to the structure co-operation article to which my hon. Friend referred earlier. I hope he appreciates this support from the Back Benches.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In fact, I am very pleased with the interventions that I have taken, because I was encouraged to leave out large parts of my speech that referred in detail to the European constitution.

Geoff Hoon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I should be delighted.

Geoff Hoon: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 128 of the document that he is examining? Article II-282 states
	"The Court of Justice shall not have jurisdiction with respect to Articles . . . concerning the common foreign and security policy."

Bernard Jenkin: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman intervened on that point, because article III-282 says:
	"The Court of Justice shall not have jurisdiction with respect to Articles I-39 and I-40 and the provisions of Chapter II of Title V of Part III".
	It does not refer to or exclude article I-15, which I read out verbatim earlier. Therefore, there is a loophole in the drafting—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I read out article I-15 and asked the Minister for Europe whether it was justiciable under the European Court of Justice. He declined to answer. Article I-15 is justiciable. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Everything is justiciable unless it is specifically excluded.
	This debate underlines one thing—why the Government have an obligation to provide a proper legal analysis of the draft constitution, so that we can have a proper debate about what the import of the draft constitution is. It is not satisfactory that we should finish up just bandying these points across the Dispatch Box, interesting and amusing though it is. The Government should publish a proper White Paper with a detailed legal analysis, using some of the top legal brains in the country, to explain to the British people why the European constitution is absolutely fundamental to the liberties of the British citizen.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I thought that my hon. Friend would like to know that, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, that precise point was brought up. It was pointed out that the European Court of Justice will have authority over the earlier articles, including the obligation to
	"actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
	That will be fully judiciable.
	When that was pointed out, I and a number of other Members in the Convention tabled an amendment to reverse that. We were not supported by the British Government representative. The Government know full well that they are walking into a trap and that British freedom of action and powers of self-government will be undermined. We will all be under the authority of the European Court of Justice, which will interpret these overriding articles in part 1 of the constitution.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for telling us what went on in the Convention but, even so, I say to him and to the Secretary of State that in the end it does not matter what either of them thinks. The only institution that will in the end decide who is right is the European Court of Justice, and unless we get the best legal opinion to apply their minds to these questions, we cannot have a full and proper debate on how fundamental the terms of the constitution are. For the Government to protest that it is just a bit of tidying-up is a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding.
	I return to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, who agrees with the European constitution and does not mind what it means. He asked about the Prime Minister's motivation. I would love to know what it is. There is one thing that we can deduce from his statements. From St. Malo onwards, we have seen the growing tendency of the European Union to duplicate and to compete with NATO. That is being reinforced in the European constitution.
	The inclusion of common foreign and security defence policy in the draft constitution does not make the world a safer place, because it undermines NATO, on which our security depends. The Euro army is a policy in search of a mission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said. Its development has no positive influence on the United States; in fact, it sends an adverse signal to the United States, which is why it was so bitterly criticised by the American NATO ambassador recently. Of course, we cannot influence US policy by separating ourselves from it. It is about the political ambition of those who would use defence as an instrument of European integration for its own sake, whether it is good for our security or not.
	Of course, European nations want a stronger voice in world affairs. Of course, European nations should increase their military capabilities and be able to operate more effectively in Europe and around the world. Of course, European nations must take more responsibility for European and global security. But the Government's policy is clearly not about those great tasks. European security and defence policy and the EU constitution will not add a single bullet to Europe's military capability.
	So what is the Government's policy about? Is it about the "little Europe" that believes that it can shut the door on our north American allies and the wider world? It is about a Prime Minister who says one thing to the President and another to his colleagues in Europe. It is about a Prime Minister who has lost control of the agenda and is now just playing for time; a Prime Minister who does not lead in Europe but follows; a Prime Minister who is failing in his most important task; a Prime Minister who is undermining the security of the British people.

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
	'believes that NATO is, and should remain, the cornerstone of Europe's collective defence; believes in the importance of European nations building up their military capabilities to contribute more to their defence and security through NATO and the EU; welcomes the development of the European Security and Defence Policy as a part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including its role in undertaking operations where NATO as a whole is not engaged; welcomes the "Berlin Plus" agreement which provides the EU with assured access to NATO planning and presumed access to NATO assets and capabilities for military operations; and welcomes the success of the ESDP operation undertaken in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the continuing military operation in Macedonia and police operation in Bosnia.'.
	Before responding to the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), I should like to say a few words about this weekend's events in Iraq. I know that the House will join me in condemning the recent attacks in Baghdad, not least that on the International Committee of the Red Cross. Terrorists have targeted an organisation that is recognised the world over as utterly impartial and driven solely by its concern for the alleviation of human suffering. They have demonstrated, in doing so, that they have absolutely no concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people. We will not be deterred by these attacks. I should like to express my sympathy to the families of all those who were killed in recent attacks, and to send my best wishes for a speedy recovery to those who were injured, particularly Jacob Nell, who was working in Baghdad on secondment from the Treasury.
	I return to the theme of today's debate. During a debate that took place a week or so ago, I observed that the hon. Member for North Essex became interested in it only when I used the phrase "European Union". He has now transformed such interventions into an entire debate, and anyone listening to his speech could reasonably conclude that his interest in defence is outweighed by his obsession with the European Union and its prospective constitution.

Bernard Jenkin: I should be delighted to have another debate on the Government's forthcoming defence cuts, if the right hon. Gentleman will provide time.

Geoff Hoon: To the best of my recollection, we have just had two defence debates and this is a further opportunity for us to debate that subject. Reasonable people would conclude, having listened to the balance of the hon. Gentleman's speech, that he is perhaps much more interested in the minutiae of the European Union than in the debate's wider perspective.
	It has been made clear to the House on several occasions that this Government will not agree to anything that is contradictory to, or would replace, the security guarantee established through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NATO is, and should remain, the cornerstone of transatlantic and European collective defence. Challenges to global security continue to evolve and change, but it seems, unfortunately, to have escaped the notice of current Conservative Front Benchers that the cold war is over, and that the world has moved on to a security environment that provides new challenges and new threats, played out on a global stage. We recognise that to meet those challenges we need both to transform NATO and to change the way in which European nations participate. It is no longer sufficient to rely on a few nations to provide deterrence to security threats.
	I assume that the Conservatives agree with the following statement:
	"Our objective must be to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance and improve European defence co-operation . . . the US strategic commitment to Europe will remain an irreplaceable guarantee of Western security. If we wish to preserve it and ensure that our views continue to be given due weight by future US Administrations, the European Allies must find answers to some difficult questions: Are we able to take on a larger share of the responsibility for our defence? How should we respond to renewed public questioning of defence policy? Or the need to develop new technologies at a time of rising costs and resource constraints? The answers make it evident that such problems have to be tackled jointly."

Bernard Jenkin: How does setting up additional headquarters and duplicating NATO assets and capabilities add to capability? It does not.

Geoff Hoon: As I observed in interrupting the hon. Gentleman's admirable contribution to the debates of the Bundestag—criticising, I assume, the policy of the German Federal Chancellor—his criticism was not in fact of this Government's policy, nor, indeed, of anything agreed by the European Union. If he wants to stand for election to the Bundestag and to criticise the German Chancellor's policies he is, I assume, free to do so. He can exercise the free rights under the EU treaty that he so confidently criticises, go there and make his criticisms of German Government policy, not of British Government policy. That is the difficulty that he faces in the light of his remarks today.
	I was inviting the hon. Gentleman to comment on the particular contribution to the debate on the subject of European allies made by Baroness Thatcher as long ago as 1984. Baroness Thatcher is not noted for her support for things European, but as long ago as 1984 she correctly recognised that the solution to the problem of improving European military capabilities lay in European hands. That is precisely the policy that successive Governments have followed ever since.
	The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the European security and defence policy is somehow the creation of a Labour Government and that, if the Prime Minister and President Chirac had not signed the St. Malo agreement, the ESDP would somehow not have existed. Perhaps I can remind him of the words of Lord Hurd, as Foreign Secretary on 21 May 1992 when introducing Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which was designed to implement the Maastricht treaty. Lord Hurd used many phrases that will be familiar to hon. Members who follow debates on European defence. He said:
	"At Maastricht, we reaffirmed the principle that European activity in defence should complement the common defence that we have through NATO. NATO is, and will remain . . . the anchor of European security. At the same time . . . the Europeans need to shoulder a greater share of the burden of providing their own security, while keeping the critical link between the transatlantic and European dimensions of our defence. That is why we agreed at Maastricht"—
	we being a Conservative Government—
	"the vehicle for developing a genuine European military capability to act in areas where NATO is not engaged or chooses not to be."—[Official Report, 21 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 517.]
	Those are familiar words and I am sure that the hon. Member for North Essex will agree.

Bernard Jenkin: On this occasion I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I have to say, however, that when the Prime Minister was asked about the issue at his press conference on Thursday, he said something different. He did not say that it all started under Maastricht. Rather, he said:
	"This is a debate that has been carrying on ever since St. Malo."
	The right hon. Gentleman should take responsibility for the debate in Europe, instead of trying to shirk his responsibilities, which is typical of him.

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman listened to the debate, instead of making such poor points, he would realise that the question of how European nations improve their military capabilities is a serious matter for those nations. [Interruption.] He voted in favour of Second Reading of the Bill that introduced the Maastricht provisions—[Interruption.] He voted in favour of provisions that included the framing of a common defence policy, which might, in time, lead—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but I must appeal to Conservative Front Benchers not to interrupt from a sedentary position. That also applies to one or two other hon. Members.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I was quoting words in favour of the
	"framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
	The hon. Member for North Essex voted for that. He supported it on Second Reading and, as I understand it, he has said nothing today to detract from it. If he supported that provision in 1992, does he still support it now?

Bernard Jenkin: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is better at law than at history. In fact, I voted against Third Reading of the Maastricht provisions—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks if I support it, but that is irrelevant—[Interruption.] Maths may not be the Secretary of State's strong point either. The Prime Minister said clearly that the debate has been carrying on ever since St. Malo, which started in 1998, not 1992.

Geoff Hoon: We could debate at length the hon. Gentleman's difficulties with the Maastricht treaty, because he appears to have voted for the provisions on Second Reading, but then voted against, following their amendment in the Bill's passage through Parliament. As I recall, I would not normally have expected him to support those amendments.

Paul Keetch: The right hon. Gentleman is right to bring up this issue. Could he conclude his history of the Maastricht treaty by reminding the House not only that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) supported this element of the treaty, but that he and his Government denied the British people a referendum on the subject?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. History is not one of the present Conservative Front Benchers' strong points, as they are establishing rather well at the moment.
	We are seeking to put the provision from the Maastricht treaty into the context of the 21st-century security environment—one which recognises the value of the transatlantic relationship while strengthening European capabilities and commitment to defence. As a global economic power, the European Union has clear responsibilities in the world. The European Union and its member states provide more than 50 per cent. of overseas development aid. The Government White Paper on the draft constitutional treaty for the European Union stated:
	"The Government has been a strong supporter of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), which is designed to give the EU the military and civilian capabilities it needs to support the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy objectives and, in turn, the peace and international security objectives of the UN."
	That common foreign and security policy enables the European Union to take concerted action using a variety of both civil and military means. The early reactions to the recent visit to Iran by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, working in concert with his counterparts from France and Germany, provide a good example of the common foreign and security policy in action. Are the current Conservative Opposition against such action, and against such European co-operation?
	At the St. Malo Summit in 1998, the United Kingdom and France, the main architects of the ESDP, recognised that, for the European Union to play its full part in international affairs, it must have the capacity for autonomous action to participate in the Petersberg tasks, which include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping and peacemaking. In the joint declaration from the 1998 UK-French summit, this Government secured the recognition that existing collective defence commitments, including NATO, would be maintained, that ESDP would be developed
	"in conformity with our respective obligations in NATO",
	and
	"that the Alliance remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members".
	That has not changed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at his press conference on 23 October that
	"it must be absolutely clear that for NATO countries the basic territorial defence rests with NATO, and the defence guarantee rests with NATO, and secondly in any structured co-operation, which we support in principle, it has got to be agreed between all 25 of the countries, so it is important that it only goes and develops in a way that is fully consistent with NATO."
	I should like to clear up one other myth that is being put about by the Conservatives. What St. Malo secured, from the United Kingdom perspective, was that the ESDP would be developed in conformity with NATO, would operate only where NATO as a whole was not engaged, and would draw on NATO as well as European military capabilities to avoid unnecessary duplication. Last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
	"We don't want duplication and we certainly don't want duplication with NATO . . . The record since St. Malo has not been one of us either giving up on the transatlantic alliance or allowing EU defence to become a competitor to NATO."

Julian Lewis: We would have no argument with the strengthening of European capabilities within NATO if the structure for the control and command of those capabilities remained within NATO. However, if a command structure existed outside NATO, but drew on the same troops, ships and aircraft that are at NATO's disposal, what would happen if NATO needed those troops, ships and aircraft and if there was a divergence between the two sets of commands being given to the same set of capabilities?

Geoff Hoon: I regret that the hon. Gentleman, like other Members on his Front Bench, is hypnotised by the European Union. Of course there is a command structure outside NATO: it exists in national headquarters. It has always existed, and that is precisely what the word "autonomous" refers to. There is not, and never has been, anything to prevent European nations—or, indeed, any other nations—from operating together militarily in an alliance or coalition to achieve a military objective. That is essentially what we are talking about here. Nothing has changed as a result of these agreements. The capabilities exist already. To return to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we certainly want European capabilities to be improved within NATO, but we want them improved outside it as well. Simply being transfixed by the phrase "European Union" and, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying it, frothing at the mouth every time the phrase is used, is not an acceptable or sensible way of conducting the debate.
	We have a position in which the pre-eminence of NATO for the more demanding global crisis management operations is recognised. It is necessary only to look at the range and scale of operations in which NATO is involved—in the Balkans, in Afghanistan and in support of Poland's efforts in Iraq—to see the remarkable array of skills and expertise that have been developed with other nations. The agreed EU position, reflected in the presidency report on the ESDP that was endorsed by the Nice European Council, is that NATO remains the basis for the collective defence of its members. The report emphasised specifically that the ESDP was about conducting crisis management tasks. That seemed to us an appropriate and complementary division of labour between the EU and NATO. In effect, the EU acts militarily only where NATO as a whole is not engaged.

Bernard Jenkin: There is a crucial distinction, which the Government keep making, even though the right hon. Gentleman resisted when I intervened on him during our previous debate on this subject: NATO will be confined to issues of defence while matters of security and crisis management will be taken over by the European Union. What does he think that NATO is in the modern security situation? It is a crisis management organisation. What has it been doing in the Balkans? What is it doing in Afghanistan? It does crisis management. Why do we need two crisis management headquarters and two crisis management capabilities? The only reason for having a EU crisis management capability separate from NATO is so that it can shut the door on our north American allies.

Geoff Hoon: I will give the hon. Gentleman an illustration of what I am talking about in a second, but it is important that he recognises that the world cannot fit into this neat analysis—for or against the European Union and for or against the involvement of European nations in particular operations. What we are talking about is improving the overall capability of European nations, both within NATO and outside it, and I will give him an example to deal with his point in a moment.
	The practical arrangements between the EU and NATO are embodied in the Berlin-plus agreement, concluded in March 2003. It sets out the support that NATO would provide to the ESDP in terms of assured EU access to NATO planning capabilities, the presumption of availability to the EU of NATO capabilities and common assets, and a range of European command options for EU-led operations, including developing the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe's role in relation to European responsibilities.
	It was on the basis of Berlin-plus that the EU was able to launch its first military operation, taking over the stabilisation role from NATO in Macedonia, with supreme headquarters allied powers Europe—SHAPE—as the operational headquarters and DSACEUR as the operation commander. The UK supported that mission. Are the Conservatives now against it?
	The EU's second military operation, in Bunia this summer, is another example of where the ESDP can be used effectively. The operation, which followed an upsurge in violence in the north-east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, stabilised the situation and assisted in the deployment of reinforcements for the UN peacekeeping force there. The House will be aware of the valuable contribution that the UK has made to that important mission. Are the Conservatives against that operation? The hon. Member for North Essex may not like the fact that the mission was conducted autonomously.
	At the start of the ESDP, at the Cologne European Council in 1999, we agreed that ESDP operations would be conducted either with recourse to NATO assets or using national assets. NATO has had little experience of such small-scale operation in Africa. Various European national headquarters, in contrast, have a wealth of just that sort of experience. That is why we agreed with the approach taken in Bunia and why we supported it.
	In that context, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in the House on 20 October:
	"There is a hierarchy in military planning. It is not formally established in treaty but it has been followed and we want it to continue to be followed: NATO first, then the Berlin-plus arrangements . . . making use of NATO assets, and thirdly, wholly autonomous operations."—[Official Report, 20 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 383.]

Patrick Mercer: I have listened with great interest to what the Secretary of State has been saying and the point that European nations' experience in Africa endows them with an autonomous capability for operating there. Could not the same argument be made for the experience of European nations versus NATO in terms of operations in the Balkans? NATO was involved successfully in the Balkans. Why now do we need autonomous forces operating in Africa? I am sure that NATO can learn.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman, with the benefit of considerable experience, regularly reminds the House of the importance of not overstretching our armed forces—I am sure that he would extend that to the armed forces of other countries as well—so it must be of some assistance both to NATO members and other European nations that organisations other than simply a NATO command headquarters are capable of carrying out such operations because, undoubtedly, that will have the effect of spreading the burden. As he rightly points out, modern nations in the present global security environment have a problem in taking on their share of responsibility, so I would have thought that, consistent with the points that he has wisely made to the House on many occasions, he would agree with my argument.

Paul Keetch: I wish to return to the hierarchy described earlier that applies when the EU may take a role that NATO does not want to take. Liberal Democrat Members have often said that NATO should have a formal right of first refusal. NATO should have a formal ability to consider an operation, and if it did not want to undertake it for whatever reason, the EU system would click in. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that such a formal right exists at the moment? If he believes that it does not exist, it might be helpful for other hon. Members to understand the arrangement if such a formal right of first refusal did exist.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, there is no such formal right and I have indicated that there is no such specific treaty provision, but there are regular, detailed exchanges and conversations, particularly between Heads of State and Government in contemplation of military action, and certainly between Defence Ministers, trying to establish both the scale of any required operation and the most appropriate way to carry that through. All that takes place well before formal meetings involving NATO Ministers, EU Ministers or, indeed, a coalition of the willing, depending on which is appropriate.
	I turn now to the capabilities. The Government firmly believe that the European countries need to strengthen their military capabilities. We are pursuing that both in NATO and, indeed, through the EU. The United Kingdom's work in NATO contributed to the agreement, at the Prague summit last year, on the Prague capabilities commitment, which is beginning to produce results. Multinational groups have been established to run programmes that address the critical capability shortfalls and recognise future capability requirements. The NATO response force—the tip of NATO's spearhead of high-readiness forces—is another resounding success for Prague. It was inaugurated just over a week ago, with an initial operating capacity. Although not yet the full package, it is 12 months ahead of schedule.
	Similarly, under the Helsinki headline goal, EU member states aim to be able to deploy within 60 days, and sustain for at least one year, some 50,000 to 60,000 troops on crisis management operations. The EU now has operational capability across the full range of the Petersberg tasks, limited and constrained by recognised shortfalls. EU member states must now take action to address those shortfalls by more effective defence spending on the capabilities that enable member states to deploy their forces rapidly. That is being taken forward by EU member states in the European capabilities action plan.

Peter Viggers: The Secretary of State refers to the wish to have 60,000 troops available on a sustainable basis. How many troops would that require, and how likely is it to be fulfilled?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is too long-standing an expert in such matters to ask that question without already knowing the answer. The answer is clear: it will depend on how long the operation lasts. The operation might require those troops for a short period, not longer than the figures outlined in the Helsinki headline goal. Alternatively, if the operation was a recurring one and the troops were required for years, as has been the case in the Balkans, we would obviously need many more than the 50,000 to 60,000 troops available if the force were to be sustained at that level for any longer period. All I would say is that we have not needed to have that number of United Kingdom troops engaged over that length of time in the Balkans, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that, when we get to the peacekeeping stage of any operation, the number of troops required may be significantly lower than might be required, as we have seen most recently, in the war fighting in Iraq.
	Together those initiatives in NATO and the EU will lead to greater overall European capability and capacity to meet the range of threats that we all now face. A capabilities development mechanism has been agreed by the EU and NATO that aims at full and mutual transparency of the programmes. In the case of the strategic airlift and air-to-air refuelling programmes, the same country is chairing both groups to ensure a co-ordinated approach.
	In support of those efforts to enhance capabilities, the United Kingdom has been playing a leading role in the creation of a European defence agency. We are currently discussing detailed arrangements with other member states, and we have secured widespread European support for our view that it should be primarily focused on developing EU military capabilities and establishing a framework for measuring them. It would also have a wider commitment to promoting cost-effective procurement and competition. Are the Conservatives also against that?
	Every one of the measures and negotiations that I have described has been aimed at delivering a more effective defence contribution for Europe and our transatlantic partners. Our approach has been to ensure that effectiveness, not just in cost terms but in operational terms, is the driving force for change. To that end, we have been robust in our stance against unnecessary duplication.

Bernard Jenkin: When does the Secretary of State think that he will be able to produce a draft statute for the European armaments, research and military capabilities agency? I notice that under article III-212, paragraph 2, the agency will have a statute drawn up by the Council acting by qualified majority. On the agency's statute, seat and operational rules, is it likely that the operational rules themselves will contain qualified majority voting? The list of tasks assigned to the agency is very broad, and could well include, under the heading
	"contribute to identifying the Member States' military capability objectives"
	the setting up of a military planning headquarters. Therefore, even if the proposal is shelved at present, under those arrangements money could be raised and spent on a military planning headquarters.

Geoff Hoon: I remind the hon. Gentleman that four is not a qualified majority, however the arrangements are configured.
	I turn to what is becoming a much misrepresented part of the negotiations with our European partners: the aspirations to create an EU operational headquarters. Let me start with what actually has been agreed. At the Nice summit in December 2000, it was agreed that the role of the EU military staff would be to perform, and I quote again,
	"three main operational functions: early warning, situation assessment and strategic planning".
	The EU military staff terms of reference, reflected in the Nice presidency report on the ESDP, do not include operational planning. That is still the position. The Government have not agreed to any change in that position in the draft constitution. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House only last Monday,
	"It is not the case that military planning is currently done only in NATO: for some time, EU military staff based in Cortenberg have carried out strategic planning. That should continue—it is fine by us—but the issue for us is that there is no case for having operational planning and the running of operations per se in an EU headquarters, separate either from supreme headquarters allied powers Europe, SHAPE, or from national headquarters."—[Official Report, 20 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 383.]
	The military advice that we have received on this is clear. The military elements of ESDP operations could be planned only by an operations headquarters with access to the functional capabilities available at SHAPE or from national headquarters. The EU military staff does not have such capabilities.
	We believe that there is scope to improve the EU's strategic planning capacity—its ability to look ahead and identify areas of potential concern worldwide and to frame strategic military options. Our opposition to the proposal to develop an EU multinational operational and planning headquarters remains unchanged. Whether or not it is at Tervuren, it is not the way ahead.
	From a military perspective, we are convinced that the operational planning and conduct of an EU operation needs to be undertaken from a working headquarters—a headquarters formed at SHAPE or by a national headquarters. Only with that approach can we ensure the currency, expertise, and access to in-depth military advice and co-ordinated resources that is needed. We must concentrate European efforts on developing effective military capabilities, not on the unnecessary duplication of NATO facilities.
	If the hon. Member for North Essex still believes that collective defence leads to a European army, he should read the Nice presidency report, in which it is stated that the ESDP
	"does not involve the establishment of the European Army".
	It would be difficult to be clearer than that, but, for the avoidance of doubt, it also goes on to say that the commitment of troops by member states to ESDP operations would be based on national, sovereign decisions. Some people, however, would rather invent the concept of a European army than explain why the world will be less dangerous if European nations work together on military tasks that NATO does not take on.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State is being exceptionally generous in giving way. He might find it useful to take this opportunity to assure the House that, if a Government of this country were at direct loggerheads—as they were over Iraq—with leading members of the European Community and the European military set-up that is gradually evolving, it would not inhibit a future Government in any way from proceeding with a military campaign such as that in Iraq, which was done with the support of the official Opposition?

Geoff Hoon: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman has given the most recent possible example. There were discussions with European allies, and the countries that participated in the meeting in Belgium that led to the specific proposals—four of them—are in a distinct minority in the European Union. I find it difficult to understand why Opposition Front Benchers are so seized of those countries, which form a tiny minority, rather than the overwhelming majority of countries that support the position of the British Government on Iraq and, indeed, the specific negotiations.
	I make it clear that there is no European army or standing European rapid reaction force or, indeed, any European agreement to create that. Forces are offered by EU member states for EU crisis management operations on a voluntary basis. That is no different from the arrangements for NATO crisis management operations or, indeed, from those used by other international organisations, such as the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was clear on that point last Thursday when he dismissed the idea that British troops could be used without the consent of the British Government. He said:
	"It is only in circumstances where the British Government or any other government agrees to participate in each individual operation that we participate."
	As to the future, we are actively engaged in the wider debate in the intergovernmental conference and we set out our position in the White Paper to which I referred. The European security and defence policy is only one element of the IGC and we are at the centre of the debate. We are trying to shape the debate with a view to the United Kingdom's long-term interests rather than sitting on the sidelines and sniping, as the Conservative party would have us do. We welcome several proposals in the draft constitution that would strengthen the ESDP. Can the Conservatives say the same? Do they welcome those proposals?
	We support the updating of the Petersberg tasks—the range of crisis management operations that the EU can undertake. That will ensure that the ESDP continues to reflect more closely the security challenges that we now face. The new solidarity clause should enable a swift and co-ordinated response to be made to a request from a member state for assistance when dealing with the consequences of a terrorist attack or disaster. We also support the creation of an intergovernmental European defence agency to increase co-operation among member states when developing defence capabilities.
	Proposals for structured co-operation go further and present both opportunities and risks. There are opportunities to strengthen the ESDP and encourage member states to improve their effective military capabilities. Much depends on the detail that will be contained in an associated protocol. We are discussing ideas in this area with many partners to establish the right way forward.
	We do not support all the proposals in the Convention text. Effective links to NATO are vital to the success of the ESDP. We could not agree to any proposal that would contradict, or replace, the security guarantee established through NATO. However, we also want a strong and effective ESDP, and that must be flexible and responsive to global security challenges. Any proposals for new forms of co-operation must not undermine that.

John Bercow: Will the operations of the proposed European defence agency be subject to the terms of the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam, and to those of its intended successor?

Geoff Hoon: I understand the benefit of applying subsidiarity to the arrangements because we clearly do not want a European capability solution that would mean that one country, or a small number of countries acting together, could solve a specific problem. That is the benefit of having an agency to look across all members of the EU, examine their current military capabilities, identify shortfalls and gaps and, indeed, suggest where solutions may lie.

John Bercow: rose—

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall move on to my conclusion.
	Anyone with any experience of international or European negotiations knows that the best way to secure Britain's interests is by engaging with our partners and allies to secure the best way forward for Britain. I have been conducting some interesting reading lately and I am sure that all Conservative Members have been reading the latest pamphlet that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) produced. He recently wrote:
	"the more influence Britain has in Brussels, the more influence we have in Washington and the wider international community."
	I am sure that that is a useful text for Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen to reflect on when they respond to the debate.
	I have set out a consistent and coherent set of policies and actions that delivers a European defence structure, takes account of the relative strengths of NATO and the European Union, reflects the modern security environment and allows us to enjoy the benefits of a strong European defence dimension as well as a positive transatlantic relationship.

Paul Keetch: May I add our condolences and sympathies to those offered by the Secretary of State to those people recently hurt in Iraq? I am sure all hon. Members would join us in that.
	I welcome the debate, although it is difficult to understand how much further forward we are since last week's statement on NATO and European defence. Nevertheless, as already expressed, there are legitimate concerns about what impact the discussions within the EU and the intergovernmental conference will have on NATO. Judging by the comments of the US ambassador to NATO and the consultations with other EU and NATO partners, it seems that will have to handle those with more sensitivity and transparency in future.
	I, too, suspect the Conservative party's motives in calling for this debate, as I think the Secretary of State and others do. Perhaps the Conservatives are trying to draw attention away from their other problems—I note the poor attendance of their Back Benchers—by concentrating on their usual anti-European rant. If they had really wanted to draw out some of the things in a defence debate that members of the armed forces are concerned about, they could have called a debate on a range of issues—overstretch, which the Conservatives go on about, armed forces housing, pensions and defence medical services. Those are more relevant to the men and women who serve in the armed forces than NATO and EU defence policy.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House are in agreement that the primacy of NATO must not be threatened. They also agree on the hierarchy to which the Secretary of State recently referred, which was again set out by the Foreign Secretary last week, of NATO first followed by Berlin-plus should NATO decline to be involved, followed by EU operations without NATO support, as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by wholly autonomous operations. Provided that that remains the Government's position, it is entirely sensible and we will continue to support it.

Mike Hancock: The inference I drew from the Opposition was that they regretted Europe's positive response to the request by our American allies for Europe to do more. Does my hon. Friend think that there was a disappointed air to their contribution as a result of Europe for once responding positively and getting its act together?

Paul Keetch: I have enormous sympathy with my hon. Friend. If he is patient, I shall come to that.

Bernard Jenkin: A cursory reading of the motion shows that we welcome Europe's greater contribution to global defence. What interests me, however, is whether the hon. Gentleman will press his order of priorities, which has some merit, on the Secretary of State, because it is not written down in anything that the Government have signed with our European partners. The so-called right of first refusal for NATO over EU operations does not exist, as we saw before the Prague summit when France threatened to veto the continuation of the Macedonia mandate unless NATO as a whole agreed that the EU should take it over. France did that with finesse to produce what it wanted.

Paul Keetch: I shall deal with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) first. I share his concerns about the Conservative view of the issues. An anti-European rant does appear to run through the Conservative party.
	I am concerned by the lack of even-handedness in the shadow Defence Secretary's attitude to the reality between the United States and Europe. His is a political party that supported—hook, line and sinker—the deployment of Her Majesty's armed forces in Iraq and asked hardly a single question about it because our forces were acting with United States armed forces.
	In answer to the specific question, I do believe, as Liberal Democrat Members have said on many occasions, that there ought to be a formal right of first refusal. The Secretary of State answered that point well in his speech; there is no such formal right, but there is a series of arrangements between Defence Ministers which we need to look at.
	No party or Government in Europe or, indeed, the United States should be against European security and defence co-operation. As the shadow Defence Secretary said, that belief is underlined in the motion in his name. However, American anxieties about European defence arrangements must be set in context. Successive American Administrations have supported defence co-operation in the EU since 1962. Even the Opposition motion expresses a belief in enhanced European military capacity, even if it is not explicitly developed under the auspices of the ESDP.
	Even now, despite the rhetoric from some quarters, the current US Administration has been supportive of the ESDP for the most part. Baroness Symons said in the other place on 22 October that
	"the guidance from the State Department is still supportive of ESDP."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2003; Vol. 653, c. 1614.]
	It is worth remembering, however, that the anxieties of the Pentagon are not shared throughout Washington and are the subject of criticism in the United States. Some analysts in the US believe that undue antagonism from the US could itself be a danger to the alliance and that Europe should have the right to discuss its defence arrangements provided that they do not undermine the alliance.
	All nations have the right to decide on their own defence and to speak to other nations if they want to do so. I do not believe that that undermines the north Atlantic treaty at all. So far, all the discussions and documents relating to the ESDP have stressed the primacy and inviolability of obligations to NATO, and we agree with that.
	We supported the Government in their efforts to make progress in this matter at St. Malo in 1998. We have also supported the attempts to improve interoperability, joint procurement and shared capabilities since then through the Helsinki headline goals, the Prague capabilities commitment and the NATO rapid reaction forces. As the Secretary of State said, a major goal of the ESDP is to increase capabilities, and that goal is beginning to be realised, albeit too slowly. The French announced a major increase in defence spending earlier this year, but sadly they have not been followed by others. The Helsinki headline goal process is beginning to deliver improved capabilities—deployable capabilities—in many areas. That process complements, rather than diverts from, NATO and it makes both the ESDP and NATO stronger.
	NATO and the EU are not in competition. Everybody agrees that the EU needs to do more, and that is what St. Malo was about. How those capabilities are organised is not, as the Americans would say, a zero-sum game. The Defence Secretary and I are in good company—which includes leading Conservatives and others who are extremely important in defence—when we make that point. Two former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Lord Bramall and the late Lord Carver, two former Conservative Defence Ministers, Lords Heseltine and Gilmour, and a former Tory Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd, signed a joint letter to The Daily Telegraph in November 2000 which said:
	"European defence co-operation is not about creating a Euro-army in competition with Nato: it is an essential underpinning of the Atlantic Alliance . . . ESDI and Nato are entirely complementary and it is not helpful to the public's understanding of this important issue to suggest otherwise."
	I agree with those comments and with the recent comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as expressed by the Secretary of State.
	The capabilities that are available to NATO are the same ones that are available to the EU. There are no separate British troops, tanks, warships or aircraft with a little NATO flag that will, some time, turn into a little EU flag; they are the same capabilities. It is important for us to remember that.
	The EU has done a splendid job in Macedonia, in the Congo and with the police support mission in Bosnia. If the NATO mission in Bosnia is brought to an end and the EU takes over, I wish it well in that task. The Government appear to accept that no new structures, which could compete with NATO for joint operations, are needed. Indeed, the Berlin-plus arrangements make any such structures redundant. The EU has been assured access to NATO planning assets. Who could require more? Provided that the Berlin-plus arrangements, which have been agreed by all concerned, including NATO members, are followed, there should be no problem or conflict of interest between the two formations.
	We have had some discussion of the draft proposals produced by the European Convention, and there are concerns about the way in which the ESDP could develop following the adoption of a European constitution. In fact, the problem is more likely to be that the addition of many new members slows down co-operation and encourages states to seek national solutions instead of getting involved in more complex multinational negotiations. We, too, welcome the expansion of the Petersberg tasks set out in article III-210 of the new constitution. The way in which those tasks are defined and implemented will be decided unanimously, as has been said, and we support the view that there should be no qualified majority voting on defence and foreign affairs.
	An armaments research and military capabilities agency is a good idea, which we support in the interests of saving money and improving defence co-operation. Any enhancement of European capabilities will benefit NATO, but the key point is the way in which those capabilities are configured and deployed. We, too, have concerns, as structured co-operation should not discriminate against other EU countries that want to take part. Moreover, a mutual defence guarantee could be seen as a threat to NATO, as the Secretary of State has just accepted. The Government have declared that they are aware of those issues and have resolved to deal with them during discussions at the intergovernmental conference—we shall take them to task if they fail to do so.
	The Liberal Democrats have always believed that the real value added by the ESDP to British security lies in sharing the military burden and increasing capabilities through pooling assets. Progress on reaching the Helsinki headline goal has been painfully slow. Achieving further and deeper collaboration on the provision of capabilities is, in fact, the real issue facing European Defence Ministers at the moment. Many targets have been set at the behest of the Americans, the British and the French, most recently at Prague, but considerable work needs to be done to translate those targets into deployable assets. Pooling capabilities has long been a theme of Liberal Democrat defence policy, but considerable potential remains for more sharing. A range of civilian and shared military support operations could be operated jointly by NATO and the EU in a similar way to the AWACS—airborne warning and control system—planes that currently fly under NATO command.

Julian Lewis: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of pooling assets, will he rule out from future Liberal Democrat policy the pooling of Anglo-French nuclear deterrents as part of an EU military superstructure?

Paul Keetch: I cannot speak about the French nuclear deterrent, but certainly we have no plans whatever in Liberal Democrat defence policy to pool the British nuclear deterrent in any EU force.
	Ultimately, the ESDP will be defined by what it delivers. It promises to deliver much, not just in terms of offensive, war-fighting capabilities that could be of use to NATO, but in making larger numbers of intelligent and well-trained peacekeepers available for multinational operations. If we want NATO to continue to develop its ability to meet the new security challenges of the 21st century, the United States and Europe must co-operate as partners. The ESDP is part of that co-operation, which is why we shall not support the Conservative motion but shall instead join the Government in the Lobby.

Terry Davis: As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) said in an intervention, this debate is a lot of fuss about nothing. It was significant that in his opening speech the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) built his argument not on any analysis of Government or EU policy, but on the admitted ambitions of some people in Germany and elsewhere to have a European army. I concede the point—of course there are people in other European countries who want total integration and a European army—but that is not the position of the British Government. I do not think it is the position of any party in the House, not even the Liberal party, which usually strongly supports European integration, but not on defence. It is the classic storm in a teacup. We should not allow ourselves to be mesmerised or carried away by the dreams of some people in other European countries, any more than we should be carried away by the nightmares of the Conservative party.
	Everybody in the House agrees that NATO should have the right of first refusal whether to undertake humanitarian tasks—the so-called Petersberg tasks. That is not new. We have had a European defence organisation for some 50 years; it is called the Western European Union. To use the language of the hon. Member for North Essex, some people would argue that the obligation under the Brussels treaty, which is the basis of the Western European Union, is much more extensive than the voluntary commitment under the NATO treaty. Although it exists on paper and has done for 50 years, we in Britain recognise that that obligation has been superseded in practice by our commitment and that of our allies to NATO. That is the way it works.
	For some time, the Western European Union has had an accepted role in humanitarian tasks, peacekeeping and similar missions—the Petersberg tasks. In the past few years it has been agreed that the WEU should be integrated into the European Union. All that has happened is that the EU has taken over from the WEU the responsibility for Petersberg tasks. Although there are all sorts of difficulties surrounding that decision, those detailed difficulties are not the subject of the debate this afternoon. I repeat: it is a storm in a teacup.
	It is essential that we do not leave the job to NATO. It is one thing to say that NATO should have the right of first refusal; it is a different thing to say that NATO should have a right of veto. It is significant that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said in an intervention that the Americans should have the right to give permission for Europeans to undertake the Petersberg tasks. I reject that concept. There will be some situations in which the Americans do not want to get involved. We should not go cap in hand to Washington and say, "Please, President Bush, if you don't want to do it, may we do it?"
	We should have the autonomous right to take our own decisions as a sovereign country, in alliance with our European allies, to undertake some mission that almost certainly—but not exclusively—will be in Europe. There have already been examples of that. Someone asked from the Opposition Benches, "When has NATO never wanted to undertake such missions?" Consider the case of the Balkans. Only a few years ago, Albania was sliding into anarchy. NATO did not want to get involved. The EU did not want to get involved, because the British Government did not want to get involved. The British Government prevented the EU from taking any action in Albania. I do not make a party political point, but there was a Conservative Government at the time. On behalf of the British Government, Lord Hurd attended a crucial meeting at Apeldoorn, where it was decided that the EU would not take action, so it was left to a coalition of European countries, fortunately, to take the necessary action to ensure that Albania did not go the way of the rest of the Balkans.
	In Albania there would have been a civil war on the scale of that in Bosnia, except that it would have been between political parties, rather than between people of different ethnic origin. That very dangerous situation was averted by a coalition—an alliance—of European countries, regrettably outside the European Union, but extremely effective none the less. Operation Alba was one of the greatest successes of any coalition of willing people.
	There will be similar situations in the future. I hope not, but it would be unreasonable to pretend that that will not happen. It would be wise to make provision to ensure that if it happens we can take action because it is part of Europe. Albania is part of Europe. Europe is not the EU; Europe is much bigger. We have a right and an interest in taking action in the Balkans and elsewhere. I am thinking of places such as the south Caucasus, where we might well want to get involved as Europeans with our European allies.
	We have faced that situation before and it could easily arise in future. The real problem about the arrangements that are being negotiated is not the nightmare envisaged by Conservative Members, but the complete lack of any arrangements for liaison between national Parliaments. That is a retrograde step, because we have had such arrangements before. If Conservative Members cared about defence and the roles of national Parliaments, they would complain that our Government have not done enough to ensure that there is liaison and consultation between national Parliaments in jointly scrutinising the arrangements that are negotiated at a European level.
	As someone who consistently voted against Maastricht, I have no difficulty in supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way just before he sits down. If I may, I should like to give him the opportunity to put a case to the Government for the retention of the WEU to serve in the role of parliamentary scrutiny of defence across Europe.

Terry Davis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We entirely agree on this issue, although he means the WEU Assembly, not the WEU—we tend to confuse the two. The WEU has been integrated into the European Union, but there is a role to be played by a body of some kind—perhaps not the WEU Assembly, as I do not pretend that the WEU and its Assembly were perfect organisations. There is a great need for improvement, but it would be a great mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water by dispensing with the Assembly now that the WEU is integrated into the European Union.
	That is a different debate that I shall not pursue further. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and I, together with hon. Members on both sides of the House, will do so on future occasions. I merely draw attention to the fact that the Conservative Opposition are barking up the wrong tree.

Peter Viggers: The Americans came rather slowly into the first and second world wars; we are very grateful that they did so. After the second world war, the main aim was to link the United States so inextricably to Europe through NATO that there was no question of its entering briskly into any further conflict. Indeed, it was required, as a part of the NATO alliance, to ensure that no further conflicts would happen in Europe and that any attack on one member would result in a joint response. It has often been said that NATO is the most successful alliance in the history of the world. It has been very successful in achieving its objectives.
	It is important to remember, however, that the United States does not look only to us in Europe for its allies. If one visited a schoolroom in the United States, one might be surprised to find that the map on the wall shows north and south America in the middle of the world, with Asia on the left and Europe on the right. That is unlike the standard Mercator projection on the wall of most of our schoolrooms, where the United Kingdom is in the centre with the United States on one side and Asia on the other. The United States does not necessarily wake up every morning worrying about Europe, central Europe and Asia. A book prepared in the United States entitled, "Report on Allied Contributions to the Common Defence", links it not only to allies in Europe and NATO, but to those from north and south America, as well as to Japan, Korea and allies in the Gulf. The United States does not owe us a living—we must play our part if we wish it to play its part in supporting the NATO alliance.
	NATO has been extremely successful. It faced down the Warsaw pact. The deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles by our former Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, and President Reagan led to the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Berlin wall. However, the importance of NATO remains.
	There were some stresses before the events of 11 September, which I shall subsequently call 9/11 for the sake of shorthand. There was an imbalance in, for example, military input. Many of us who are involved in NATO matters used to talk about the ratio of 100:60:15. If one took the American input into defence to be 100 per cent., European input would be 60 per cent. but output would be approximately 15 per cent. In other words, the Americans had approximately six times the military power of Europe. Consequently, the defence capabilities initiative tries to rectify the defects in Europe in, for example, heavy lift, command and communications, air-to-air refuelling and, above all, sheer weight of forces. European forces have been significantly weaker than those of the United States.
	Let us consider the input of some countries into defence. The United Kingdom is notable for being better than many. Only Turkey and Greece contribute percentages of gross domestic product to defence that exceed those of the United Kingdom. Of course, that is for their own purposes. Luxembourg, which is a prosperous country, contributes a small amount—approximately 1.1 per cent.

Denis MacShane: It is 0.8 per cent.

Peter Viggers: The Minister corrects me, but let us call the modest percentage 1 per cent. for simplicity. That is less important than Germany's input, which was 1.9 per cent. when I last looked. The Minister may have a different figure. [Interruption.] He indicates a lower figure. Germany, with a heavy GDP, does not make much of a contribution to defence when compared with many others.
	There is not only an overall quantitive weakness but a failure to co-ordinate defence procurement. Different nations often insist on their own aircraft, tanks, guns, uniforms and boots. If the head of an airline insisted on having his own aircraft, he would be certified and fired without delay, whereas the heads of different air forces—notably in France—insist on having their own aircraft. We have co-operative ventures but we do not come together to procure one type of equipment.
	That was the position until 9/11, but since then there has been a massive boost to the United States defence effort. The United States spends approximately as much on defence as the next 11 largest countries put together. Its increase in defence spending is the equivalent of much of the European initiative overall. The United States is therefore in a class of its own.
	Article 5 was invoked, not, as was expected, by a European country against possible aggression but in respect of the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The United States therefore effectively invoked article 5 of the Washington treaty, which led to the European NATO countries deploying airborne warning aircraft over the United States and support of the US by Europe.
	The invocation of article 5 was not what we historically expected—a triumphant proof that NATO is an operative coalition. In the context of Afghanistan and Iraq, it proved ultimately to be more a coalition of the willing than simply the operation of NATO. I therefore maintain that invoking article 5 after 9/11 did not result in boosting support for NATO.
	Before an attack on Iraq, Turkey invoked the NATO treaty and asked for support against a possible missile attack. The refusal of France and others put NATO under considerable stress. So NATO has been in some difficulty, and this all comes when NATO is being expanded: the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are to be admitted, together with Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. That will be helpful in strengthening and broadening the alliance.
	The admission of those—in military terms—comparatively modest countries is justified, bearing in mind the fact that although we have thought of NATO as a military alliance, it is, of course, also political. One might once have asked, "What is the point of admitting Estonia to NATO? What can it do to support the defence of the other NATO countries?" However, that is not really the right question. The question is what Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and all the other nations can do to strengthen the political alliance that is NATO.
	Also, those countries will be given the reassurance of NATO membership. They still feel that they are under the shadow of the former Soviet Union and now of Russia, and might feel that they can benefit from the safeguard—the spiritual and mental support—that they get from being members of NATO. That is important in terms of NATO's expansion. NATO is alive and well, but we need to work on the alliance.
	Meanwhile, there are the European Union initiatives to consider. Let us never forget, although it is quite easy to do so, that France withdrew from the integrated military structure. It deliberately put itself in a situation whereby it cannot take part in the normal command and co-ordination efforts of NATO. It makes a point of not being part of the integrated military structure, and that significantly weakens NATO and significantly weakens the contribution that France can make to it.
	I thought it regrettable that the Government and our Prime Minister chose the country that is not involved in the integrated military structure to be the subject of the St. Malo initiative in 1998. The intended Franco-British co-operation, and the strengthening of the European institutions for defence and of the European security and defence policy, which has led to a proposal that there should be a separate headquarters and command structure for a European force's identity, have not been very successful.
	The Secretary of State talked with some pride of an initiative for having 60,000 troops available on a sustainable basis, but he ducked and weaved when I asked how many troops would be needed to maintain 60,000 on a sustainable basis. Of course, we all know that the answer is three times 60,000, because there must be one unit in preparation, one in operation, and one in stand-down and retraining. That is before one takes account of the fact that troops are often unfit for military service—some 10,000 are currently unfit—quite apart from all the other problems of training and so on. We would need 180,000 troops, but the Secretary of State did not give the answer that he knew as well as I did: we are nowhere near providing 180,000 troops on a sustainable basis, and we are dreaming if we think we can.
	There is a tendency in Europe to talk about European co-operation and, having talked about it and agreed yet another new European initiative, everyone goes home feeling that they have done something good—people feel fitter for it all. That is rather like a man going to a shop and buying an exercise bicycle or a pair of dumb-bells, and going home feeling that he has done something to improve his health. He has not done anything of the sort. The fact is that these European initiatives are all talk and not much action. They are like, as they say in Texas, someone with a big hat and no cattle. To follow the analogy through, there is a danger that Europe is deteriorating because we are not taking defence as seriously as the Americans are. I have heard it said that Europe, or the European Union, is deteriorating into a great, fat, lazy Switzerland.
	We cannot go on like this. There are severe dangers in pursuing the European defence initiative. I want to make two points that have not been made yet today. In making the first, I speak as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, of which several of those present now are also members. We co-operate and participate in the assembly's debates, and learn a great deal from listening to colleagues from other countries. I listen to Americans who say that if there were a credible European defence identity, the United States would not feel the need to become involved in areas such as Kosovo.
	I remember a conversation with an American senator, who said, "I do not think we would have been able to carry Congress with us if there had been a European defence identity. Congress would not have felt the need to be involved. It would have said, 'Kosovo is a European issue: let the Europeans work it out'."
	As I said when I was talking about the allied contributions to the common defence of the United States, the US has many obligations apart from those in Europe. If there is a credible European identity in defence terms, it will not wish to be involved. I am confident of that, and I think it is a serious hazard.
	The second hazard is this. If the US is not involved in a European venture and we in Europe do become involved, if and when the involvement becomes difficult—if more military power is needed than we originally anticipated; if the small involvement in an attempt to keep the peace turns sour, and our troops come under immense pressure and attack—we say to the US, "We are very sorry, but we had a European initiative which has gone wrong and we now need your support", the US will be even less likely to involve itself.

Julian Lewis: May I add a further refinement to my hon. Friend's point? Even if a so-called crisis management operation went wrong and escalated, and we as Europeans had to appeal to the Americans to come in—and even if they did come in—by then the war would already be under way. If they had been involved from the outset under the NATO structures, the war might have been avoided through deterrence, and the fighting might not have broken out in the first place.

Peter Viggers: That is a good point. The sheer weight of NATO's power might deter a potential aggressor. The whole point of deterrence is that there is no need to become involved, because the initiators have been deterred. If an approach is made with much less force and in a rather timid manner, the fighting could well escalate. It is the sheer weight of the American war machine that enables America to assist in the maintenance of peace around the world.
	Let me say in parenthesis that we should continue always to pay tribute to the Americans. Theirs is in many ways a rather insular country, and only 7 per cent. of them have passports. It has taken real determination and a real moral sense of purpose for America to involve itself in world events as it has.
	The EU and NATO are not coterminous. With military involvement through the EU we would, as it were, gain an ally in Ireland and lose an ally in Turkey, which is NATO's strongest member in the crucial area of eastern Europe and western Asia. NATO is better shaped to assist the maintaining of peace in dangerous areas than is the EU. I should add that some of our allies have an agenda that is inconsistent with NATO and, indeed, hostile to NATO interests. We would not paint a complete picture if we did not point out that there are European interests that are anti-American. They would like to see a greater American initiative, and to aggrandise their own countries at NATO's expense.
	All the difficulty that we have been discussing has arisen because our Prime Minister has a penchant for telling people what he thinks they want to hear. What he says in Europe is different from what he says in the United States. That is why, along with many others, the ambassador to NATO, Nick Burns, has expressed serious concern about the manner in which the European defence initiative is proceeding. He is anxious for us to play our part, and remain staunch allies of NATO. If we do not reiterate our support, there is a risk that the United States will place more emphasis on other parts of the world.
	The debate has drawn attention to an important issue, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the motion.

John Smith: It is a privilege to speak in the debate, and also to follow the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who made a very interesting speech. I, too, am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and have been for some years. I take an interest in NATO's future and in its current state, and I often reflect on the huge success that the NATO alliance has been. It has already been described as probably one of the most successful military alliances in history—certainly in European history—and it has given us virtual peace in Europe for nearly half a century. We want it to go on succeeding, which is why I was so disappointed to see the motion and to hear what was said by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).
	The debate was supposed to be about NATO and the European security and defence policy, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was about nothing of the sort. It displayed a preoccupation with the vagaries of the pending negotiations on the EU constitution, and had little or nothing to do with the crucial defence issues that face this country and the rest of the world. Those are the issues that I came to hear debated, and to talk about.
	In fairness to the hon. Member for Gosport, he raised a crucial issue. He said that NATO had been enormously successful but that we should be very careful, because it was currently under threat and there were pressures on it that needed to be addressed. He rightly drew attention to those pressures, unlike the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I hope that the Opposition Member who winds up the debate will do the same.
	The biggest single threat to NATO—the most successful military alliance in European history—is the lack of burden sharing. It is an equal threat: a threat to one is a threat to all under article 5 of the north Atlantic treaty, and under article 5 as invoked on 12 September 2001 we will come to the aid of an individual member. As has been pointed out, it is ironic that we ended up going to the aid of our biggest ally, the United States of America. We made a very practical contribution in providing air surveillance for that country when it was experiencing a period of great need, was under a great threat, and was feeling great fear, having been the victim of such a terrible atrocity.
	NATO, however, was primarily a cold war alliance, and the cold war disappeared a long time ago. I believe—as, I think, do many Members who take an interest in defence matters—that in many respects our current security environment is ten times worse than it was during the cold war, when our enemy was predictable, stable and clearly identifiable. That is not the world in which we live now: we live in a much more insecure world, where the enemy is not obvious and we do not know whence the threats will come from one day to the next. Who could have predicted the military engagements in which we have been engaged in the past five years? I do not think that anyone could have done so.
	That illustrates the nature of the threat. It illustrates the importance of defence spending, and it illustrates why the Government are right to increase it in order to protect this country and create a safer global environment. It is, of course, crucial for us to persuade our European allies to share their responsibility. That is exactly what they are not doing. The biggest single threat to NATO is if America becomes more and more separated from Europe in terms of military capability and technical capability in the military sector, which since the increase in defence expenditure in the United States has become very great indeed, not if there is one command, two commands, or one planning organisation. That is irrelevant. That is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The truth is that those countries do not have capability.
	There is plenty of planning capability already in Europe. One would not have to create a new planning capability structure because all one would have to do is move a few people around. What one does not have is the military capability to be able to respond to an article 5 threat, for example, if it were presented to Europe.
	The reason the Prime Minister sat down with the President of France to discuss the future shape of European security and defence policy is that Britain and France are the only two countries that can deliver it. They are the only two countries with a war-fighting capability. France is not even in the military command structure, so it is right that the British Government play a leading role in shaping European defence policy, and at the same time play a leading role in terms of our alliance with our most powerful ally, the United States of America. No one, therefore, should be confused about the role that is being played, and I think that it is very constructive.
	It is crucial that we get the Europeans to invest in defence. Not only are they not investing but their defence expenditure is going down. Their contribution to NATO is going down. That must be addressed. We have had the defence capabilities initiative and the Prague capabilities commitment and we are starting to see an improvement, but the big issue in Europe is not just the lack of defence expenditure but the inefficient way in which other European countries are investing their budgets in defence. They do not address the capabilities of NATO, the Petersberg missions under the ESDP, or, frankly, anything else. So much of the debate this afternoon has been an irrelevance. What we need to do is to address those issues that guarantee the future of NATO, which has served us so well for so long.
	I remind the House that every NATO member, including the new members from new Europe—not old Europe—is in favour of a European security and defence policy, because every country recognises the importance of improving that capability for NATO. There will be no duplication whatever in terms of military capability because at the moment it does not exist. Anything that is being created is a bonus. Anything that is created for Petersberg missions under the European security and defence policy will be available for NATO missions, and those are capabilities that do not exist at the moment. That is why it is ludicrous for Opposition Front Benchers to argue what they have been arguing today and no doubt will continue to argue in the debate. That is the single biggest issue; that is the single biggest threat to NATO. The single biggest challenge that we face is establishing those capabilities.
	Command and control and new headquarters are irrelevant. The only interoperational activities, the only combined activities, that can take place are through NATO structures, because they work, have been tested and have been extremely successful over the past decade. Europe could not do anything about the Balkans and sat back and watched people slaughtering each other in Bosnia, which was, strictly speaking, outside the sphere of influence of article 5 of the NATO treaty. That is why there is a strong case for developing a European military capability. That is now being used in Macedonia and in the Congo. Surprise, surprise! It just so happens that NATO command and control facilities are being used, because there is no other option. The debate that we have had about the creation of the European bogeyman, some fundamental threat that will undermine the defence of this country, is patently absurd.
	It is somewhat sad to see a once great party, the British Conservative party, advance these arguments in an Opposition day debate. That party was closely associated with the defence of this nation for many years. Conservative Members are so off the wall now. They turn up this afternoon and use precious time to discuss a crucial issue—the defence of the nation—by talking about the vagaries of the European Union constitution. It has been pointed out to them repeatedly that it will have no bearing whatever on the future defence of this nation.
	It is absurd even to contemplate a situation where the one country in Europe that has a war-fighting capability, this country, and which is within the military command structure of NATO, would commit British troops, British men and women, to active engagement anywhere in the world without the sovereign approval of the nation. Even to argue such a case is patently absurd. Yet that is what Conservative Members have done today; it is what they have been doing all afternoon. I hate to say it, but I am sure that that is what the Conservative spokesman will do when he sums up the debate.
	I would like to hear some constructive proposals on how we can aid our allies in Europe, our fellow NATO members, in addressing their problems. I would like to hear proposals not even to increase but just to stem the haemorrhaging of their defence budgets, and to help them to build the capabilities that were outlined in Prague in 2002. That is what we should do if we were serious about defence. Frankly, if one of the political arguments necessary to achieve that is that Europe should have a crisis management and conflict prevention and avoidance capability within a rapid reaction force of 60,000 troops, so be it. I agree with the hon. Member for Gosport that it is a long way off because one needs 180,000 troops to do that, but do not forget that there are 2 million troops in Europe, who, if they were trained and prepared properly and if there were the political will, could provide the very force to meet not only the Petersberg missions but the commitment to NATO as well.
	That is the challenge of this debate about NATO and the European security and defence policy. That is why I will support the Prime Minister's amendment and why it is sad to see the Tories in the state that they are in now.

Patrick Mercer: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). I hope that I will be able to make some positive suggestions, rather than be merely negative.
	I pay tribute to the members of the American armed forces who have been killed over the past 24 hours in a series of extremely unpleasant ambushes and skirmishes in Baghdad and the surrounding area. Without wishing to be complacent, notably, there have not been British casualties for several months, touch wood. Clearly, the opposition in the southern part of Iraq may not be as serious as that in the centre and the north. It could also be that our excellent soldiers, sailors and airmen are doing a first-class job. Before going any further, I want to pay tribute to the work that they are doing.
	Sadly, neither the Secretary of State for Defence nor his shadow is currently present, so I will not be able to patronise them to their faces, but I should like to point out how interesting I found their opening comments. I assume both men to be honourable and utterly rational, but they came at similar problems from two very different angles, which proved extremely illuminating. The Secretary of State made some calming and placatory comments, which I also found very interesting. In an interview of 4 August, the French Defence Minister said:
	"Europe has reached a point of maturity where it is now capable of isolating any one-off problems . . . Today, I reckon Defence Europe"—
	capital D, capital E—
	exists, even though it needs to be bolstered on the capabilities front, on which all the European countries must make extra efforts. But today we are demonstrating in Macedonia, where we took over from NATO"—
	note the use of the phrase, "we took over from NATO"—
	and above all in Ituri [Democratic Republic of the Congo] where we are operating autonomously, that Defence Europe exists."
	In the light of words such as those, it is hardly surprising that people such as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, who presented an extremely balanced view, exhibit a tension and a concern about where our defence is going.
	I still do not understand why operations such as those in Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo cannot be mounted underneath a NATO umbrella. Nor do I understand why, given that our European partners' defence spending is falling continually, we are even contemplating adding another headquarters. Headquarters are expensive. They involve big fat chaps with red tabs—I can say that because I was one—who consume large salaries and are driven around in cars. But they do not carry a rifle or deliver a grenade. They do not keep peace or save starving thousands. They do not contribute, in terms of killing or saving, one iota. As has been said, anybody can plan; the question is one of adding money and capability and keeping people up to the mark, via the various different agreements and alliances that we have had over the years. My view is that NATO has stood the test of time, and that comments such as the French Defence Minister's are deleterious. My view is also illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who said that a feeling of anti-Americanism most certainly exists abroad and about, in NATO and Europe, which is thoroughly damaging to the transatlantic alliance.

John Wilkinson: I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech with great interest, but does he not realise that our French neighbours have the clear political ambition that the European Union should exercise an autonomous muscle and intervene in world affairs? It is easiest to start where there are less intractable military problems: in Africa, for example, of which countries such as France have much experience, and in which they have great financial and commercial interests.

Patrick Mercer: I am very grateful for that intervention. It certainly illuminates the point that I was struggling to make, but which my hon. Friend makes much more clearly than I ever could; indeed, it is made particularly clear by the conduct of the French during the war in Iraq. I do not wish to beat a drum or to aerate this matter more than is necessary, but the fact remains that we are standing on a dividing line in terms of where this nation goes: whether we look towards America, or towards Europe, in terms of our defence.
	I should like to consider a rather more arcane aspect of NATO and European defence policy, and to discuss three different elements of what lies ahead for this nation's defence and its relations with America and Europe. First, it would seem that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has just pointed out, European nations are concentrating at the lower end of the war-fighting spectrum in particular. My grave concern is that Great Britain is about to join the second-class military nations—a development that, in my view, will be heralded in the White Paper that will be published shortly. It will not only show the way in which our defence will be restructured; it will also disguise the swingeing defence restrictions—not cuts—that will be introduced over the next months and years. The grave danger is that if we are not careful Britain's first-class armed forces will end up being capable of standing shoulder to shoulder only on operations such as those in Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to which we have just referred. They will be incapable of the higher end of war-fighting that we have seen, and continue to see, in Iraq.
	Secondly and even more significantly, just around the corner is the grave danger of trying to reap a peace dividend on the back of what I trust and pray is the wholly laudable progress that will, I hope, be made in Northern Ireland. I am not alone in this view—the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff made exactly that point as he stepped down from his post. He said that any lessening intention in Northern Ireland must not be used as an excuse for a peace dividend. I firmly believe that this Government will cynically attempt, on the back of any success that they enjoy, one hopes, in Northern Ireland, to cut our armed forces in such a way that they are capable only of dealing at the lower end of the operations that we have discussed. In this way, there might be a much more comfortable billet for this country as a third-class power, with other European powers rather than with America. That worries me gravely.
	I turn to my third—I hope novel—point. In a recent debate on defence policy, I tried to intervene to tell the Secretary of State that we need new and fresh defence thinking. He was introducing, in his inimitable way, the foothills of the White Paper. At no point in his comments was anything other than conventional war discussed. Our capability to deal with the asymmetric threat simply did not feature. Tanks, aeroplanes, ships, numbers, bullets and so on were mentioned, but intelligence effort, co-operation between uniformed and non-uniformed forces, and co-operation between armed forces, police forces and other forces that might help to recover from a terrorist outrage—in other words, the gamut of homeland security—were not touched on. The EU and NATO between them must look towards a totally different way of dealing with the changed threat. Only by so doing will we be capable of meeting—whichever alliance we are in, whichever way we choose to go—the threat that lies just around the corner.
	Labour Members giggled rather hard at one or two documents allegedly written by Conservative Members, which were published in that noble organ, The Sun. None the less, I shall offer a quote. As a result of what that paper did—or did not—say, the fact remains:
	"Nicholas Burns, the United States ambassador to Nato, has said the EU plans represent 'one of the greatest dangers to the transatlantic relationship'."
	Nothing that we do—nothing—must endanger that relationship, because upon it our future depends.

Mike Hancock: I do not think that a single speech this afternoon has dissented from that last contribution. Every hon. Member has supported the ongoing commitment of this country to have a strong relationship with the United States: no one has expressed significant dissent about that in recent defence debates. What they have done is suggest, as the Americans themselves have time and again since President Eisenhower first proposed that Europe ought to do more—successive American Administrations have argued the same point—that we have to share the burden. As the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) rightly said, if there was a threat to NATO, the biggest threat was the fact that Europe has, over the past 40-odd years, ignored the request and demand from the US to play—and pay for— a bigger role in the defence of the world through NATO.
	We are right to praise the splendid results of 50 years of co-operation between Europe and our north American allies, which has delivered peace, but it is wrong to suggest that we can stand still. The American Administration have made it clear that they are not prepared to stand still and they demand that Europe move forward. What disappoints me is that they make that demand, and then want to exercise a right of veto if they do not like the direction in which Europe is going. Conservative Members have reminded us time and again of the role of the sovereign nation, but it disappoints me that they were prepared to give up that sovereignty by giving the US a veto on when our forces would or would not be used. That drift away from their prepared line seriously disturbed me.
	The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was right to end his comments by reminding us of our commitments to the ongoing fight against terrorism. The sort of unexpected event that has beset the US, occurs all too often in Iraq and is all too frequently on the horizon in Saudi Arabia, elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, in the UK. Our lack of preparedness in respect of homeland defence is a significant issue, which Parliament must address. I would be greatly disappointed if any of the Government's proposals in the White Paper were going to dilute our commitment to homeland defence. I would like to see it strengthened.

Julian Lewis: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not believe that he was present at the defence procurement debate on Thursday, when I raised the possible danger—I have often discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), given his special responsibilities in that area—posed by sealed containers that come into this country, when only minuscule numbers of them are picked out, scanned and identified as potential carriers of weapons that could cause devastation in the heart of our cities. I confined my one request to the Minister for Europe to address that point, but he did not do so. I welcome the emphasis that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has put on that matter and I hope that the Opposition can work together to secure some better answers from the Government than we have had in the past.

Mike Hancock: I entirely accept that. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson), I represent a major seaport, and we drew attention to sea-borne threats when the Defence Select Committee was producing its report. We mentioned the problem of being unable to check enough containers. Sometimes, out of whole shiploads, perhaps containing 1,000 containers, only about 10 might be checked with any thoroughness. I have already said that I shall be disappointed if the Government do not ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to dealing with that problem. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is right to emphasise that issue and I hope that Ministers will listen hard to what is said.
	In examining Europe today, we should reflect on how NATO has changed in response to European expansion from being more of a military alliance to being more of a political one. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was right to mention the example of Estonia. What does that country bring to the military table? Very little. However, it does bring an immense experience of involvement in political dialogue in an important part of northern Europe. Similarly, we need to bear in mind the great experience of dealing with the former Soviet Union that is shared by the countries that will shortly join the EU. Their valuable experiences are drawn from the eastern part of Europe, and we need to learn to use their expertise.The EU is responding as Governments have requested it so to do.
	To understand the St. Malo dialogue, we have to remember what was said during the previous year. President Clinton had spoken to the President of France and the British Prime Minister to explain that he expected those two countries to become the leaders of the European dimension in defence. He looked to them to bring some impetus and try to get Europe to spend more on defence, and to plan and co-ordinate the capabilities of Europe. St. Malo was born out of the pressure then exerted by the then American President and his Administration. Europe responded positively, and St. Malo gave the lead to many of the initiatives now being brought to fruition.
	We have heard today that the idea of having a duplicate planning centre has been shelved and is no longer on the agenda. I sat in a meeting in Brussels last week where the NATO ambassadors representing EU countries made it clear that the capability to provide 60,000 men for deployment had been achieved. Not only that, such deployment included the support necessary to make that happen. That was repeated in the Select Committee in the same week. However, what could not be guaranteed was the capability to have such support in place for a year. That is the problem every time: the lack of such support to deliver the capability. It can be delivered only with the support of our American allies through NATO—only that offers Europe the possibility of mobilising a force that can deliver the punch that we want it to have. We have to work in harmony with NATO.
	I was disappointed that the biggest failure that any of the ambassadors—and particularly ambassador Burns from the United States—could suggest for the problems that we had experienced was the failure to understand the structures of the EU. The NATO Council had not understood what the EU was trying to achieve. It was interesting to note the well publicised comments to the effect that Ambassador Burns was going to read the riot act to his colleagues at the NATO council. He did nothing of the sort. In fact, he changed his tune considerably at the meeting. The Secretary-General, the former Secretary of State for Defence here, was complimentary in thanking the ambassador for the change of tone. Far from going there to teach us a lesson, the ambassador did the opposite and complimented Europe for what it was trying to do. I am delighted to see that the American Administration are nowhere near as frightened of Europe doing what it was asked to do as the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), was this afternoon.
	The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who spoke about the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of defence in future, is dead right. We not only need to exercise such scrutiny in this Parliament, we need a parliamentary assembly that can deliver such scrutiny right across Europe. We need a parliamentary forum or assembly—not the European Parliament—with real teeth. The Minister for Europe might like to consider having a debate on that subject in the House in Government time: it is long overdue. I am very disappointed by the tone of the Conservative motion this afternoon, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Richard Spring: We have had a number of excellent speeches this afternoon, particularly those of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who both claimed that Conservative sentiments were alarmist. I want to deal with that issue in my remarks. Some of our EU partners have a clear ambition to secure much greater integration at many levels, including in respect of defence. Frankly, I believe that they want it at a level that is unacceptable to the British people.
	We heard a particularly good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who talked about the failure of defence procurement to work together across European boundaries, and specifically about the problem of heavy lift. He also referred to the enormous impact on others of the huge US spending commitment, and he rightly mentioned the need for NATO to reform. Indeed, spending—or the lack of it—in Europe was a consistent theme of many contributions.
	I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who said that NATO had been a huge success, which is true, and that the biggest threat to it was the lack of burden sharing. I agree with him on that, too. He talked about establishing capabilities and mentioned the fact that we—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in particular—had referred to the constitutional implications of what is before us.
	I do not want to dwell on that issue any more than is necessary, but I want to make one point on article I-15 of the proposed constitution, which deals with the competence of the Union in relation to matters of common foreign and security policy. For the record, I refer the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan to Professor Arnull's submission to the Lords Constitution Committee so that we can draw the matter to a close. The professor stated:
	"The power of the Court of Justice to review compliance by Member States with the second subparagraph of that provision is particularly significant."
	That measure relates to loyalty and mutual solidarity. He continued:
	"It may lead the Court to be called upon to consider whether action by a Member State complies with an act adopted by the Union in this area or is contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness. The Court would be likely to regard at least some of these issues as justiciable."
	However we look at this issue, case law, driven on by the European Court of Justice, has massively increased what can broadly be described as judge-led law in this country, with all the implications that flow from that. I simply wanted to make that point to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. This is not an obsessive thing; we know what has happened in the European Union and I believe that, with the constitutional arrangement that is now before us, the whole process of integration will inevitably be driven further forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) is always heard with enormous respect when he speaks on military matters. He talked about new structures at a time of reduced spending, and what he said was absolutely right. He also mentioned the changed threat—the threat of terrorism—and the need for homeland defence. Those points are very pertinent at this time. I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who also highlighted the need for homeland defence and the lack of spending.
	The people of this country have, rightly or wrongly, lost faith in almost all our national institutions, but the one institution that continues to inspire unqualified respect and affection is our armed forces. By way of an example, whatever controversy may have surrounded the Iraq war, nobody could dispute that, militarily, it was extraordinarily successful. Our front-line soldiers performed magnificently, and their conduct in post-conflict Iraq has been marked by a remarkable mixture of firmness and sensitivity. We are also blessed with military leadership that stands up to any international comparison. That could have been said time and again over past decades. The point is that we play pointless politics with our armed forces at our peril.
	The Government have an obsessive stated desire to have influence in Europe, not by a firm focus or sense of purpose, but by being carried along in the slipstream of others, time and again. I heard the Prime Minister observe, about an emerging EU defence identity, that it was going to go ahead anyway, so we had to be involved. To what purpose? It is beyond absurd to suggest that that will buy us any influence. There will be times when, explicitly, our national interests have to outweigh some illusory pursuit of influence.
	In his desire to mend fences with France and Germany after the Iraq war, the Prime Minister has again given in to an agenda that could damage NATO but yield no practical benefits. Of course the Government are right to try to mend fences with our European partners in France and Germany. The joint trip to Iran by the three Foreign Ministers was a fine example of what can be accomplished when our three countries work together. But, by consenting to the creation of an EU defence policy that is increasingly separate from NATO—reinforced in the proposed EU constitution, as I have spelled out—the Government are endangering the basis of British and European security, weakening the transatlantic alliance, alienating countries that look to us and, once again, failing to show leadership in Europe.

Nicholas Soames: I warmly endorse the point that my hon. Friend so powerfully made about the brilliant success of British forces in the Iraq war, and, indeed, at all other times. He was at the Ministry of Defence, and I wonder whether he would agree that the forces' principal concern on this matter is the Government's obsession with structures and their failure to understand that what matters more than anything else in the European context is capability, in which we are grievously deficient?

Richard Spring: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for being one of the most outstanding Ministers ever to have occupied a position in the Ministry of Defence.
	The Government must ensure that EU military co-operation proceeds only under NATO's umbrella, and without duplication or competition with NATO. I speak with some admiration for the way in which France has set the agenda for the European project over and over again. The proposed EU defence entity is very much a French creation, as indeed are so many other policies in the EU. But let us consider NATO. For decades, France has not been part of the integrated command structure, and that has certainly had a direct impact on the efficacy of the organisation. Although most of the other EU countries have been full members of NATO, has French influence in Europe overall been diminished?
	The point is that there will be times when European countries will not feel it appropriate to be part of an integrated structure at whatever level. Is Ireland's influence in Europe less because it is not in the Schengen agreement? Is Sweden ignored because of the single currency issue? Of course not. The blunt truth is that there can never be a viable EU defence identity without British involvement. That being the case, why have we been sucked into this? Of course, this is all about politics and not about defence. Surely everything in history shows us that to do something not specifically for a particular functional purpose, but to make a political point, is invariably wrong in practice and in principle. There is no evidence that the creation of an EU defence identity will enhance European defence capabilities. There is something profoundly unsound in doing something not to resolve a functional problem, but simply because of some misplaced political purpose.
	The Prime Minister may wish to forget it, but in 1997 he assured the House that
	"getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
	Yet since then his policy has changed. That should be no surprise. This Government took office pledging to uphold the EU's three separate pillar structure, yet they are now acquiescing in its abolition. Three years ago, they were against a written EU constitution; now they are in favour of one. They used to be against a legally binding charter of fundamental rights, but now they accept the proposal. And this Government are now backing the very unrealistic policy that the Prime Minister once inveighed against. They have consented, in effect, to an EU planning defence cell and are willing to accept structured co-operation—in other words, deeper defence integration—within the EU, despite the fact that it is absolutely clear where that agenda is leading us.
	Dominique de Villepin recently said:
	"The appointment of a European Foreign Minister, together with the creation of a European Defence policy, backed by credible assets, will enable Europe to defend its vision and shoulder its responsibilities."
	An internal German army document stated:
	"A European Army legitimised and financed by the European Parliament is the visionary goal of German policy in the ESDP."
	It went on to say that this European army needed
	"a clear definition that separates it from . . . NATO".
	That is the thinking behind the whole European defence integration process. Those who favour that approach have invariably been ultimately successful in the pursuit of integration at different stages of the EU's political process.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex set out the risks of undermining the transatlantic relationship at a time when there is, as hon. Members have observed, rising anti-Americanism. Regrettably, there are those who sit in Governments in our EU partner countries who would not find that unacceptable. By contrast, I invite the Secretary of State to talk to our friends in the EU accession process, who consider that rise with genuine alarm. Like me, the Minister of State for Defence was recently in Turkey, a country to which we should all be greatly indebted for what it did in the cold war. He will have heard in no uncertain terms of Turkey's anxieties.
	Our American friends famously helped to preserve our liberties during the cold war. Of course, as we have heard again this afternoon, the nature of future conflict would be very different, but given the inability of Europeans to spend on defence, it is hugely important that our American allies continue to want to be in Europe. I speak as a Member of Parliament who has more than 20,000 American service personnel at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath. They are hugely welcome in our midst.
	In different economic circumstances, will a future US Administration considering budgetary savings look to their European commitments to secure them? Given the unwillingness of Europeans to spend, and the clear, open and focused desire of some in Europe to create a wholly separate defence identity, what will their response be? There is a limit to generosity. It should be our unequivocal role to understand, without qualification, the nature of the danger and to react to it not by weasel words, but by taking a clear and principled stand.
	We want European countries to be strong in defence and to co-operate closely. They need to establish an equitable burden in international security, and they need to spend more in a more rational way, concentrating on today's defence needs. However, that must be entirely and unequivocally within NATO. We, the Europeans and the Americans are united by shared beliefs in democracy, the rule of law and human rights. We can best promote those beliefs throughout the world if America and Europe stand together.
	What is it about this Government that means that they so lack self-confidence that they must continually make damaging gestures to gain influence in Europe? Any dispassionate observer who looks at the proposals before the intergovernmental conference will see immediately that there has been almost no substantive British influence on the Convention's proceedings. So we have the worst of two worlds—signing up implicitly to a defence identity that adds nothing to our defence capabilities, but for which there is obviously no quid pro quo. It is symptomatic of the cataclysmic failure of British influence in the EU that history, in due course, will judge accordingly.

Denis MacShane: We have had a good debate, with some fine Back-Bench speeches. I would like to be able to pay a compliment on the speeches that we have heard from the Conservative Front Bench, but at times, even in parliamentary debates, some intellectual honesty is required.
	We heard an extremely good contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). There was also a good contribution from the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), almost in a double act with his near neighbour the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). They spoke well; both are experts on defence issues.
	The hon. Member for Gosport gave us to believe that NATO was under some threat. On the contrary, in all my travels in the incoming member states in eastern Europe, I have found that NATO is extremely popular. Those countries reject the efforts of both the anti-Americans, many of whom exist in different parts of mainland Europe—there are some here in island Europe—and the anti-Europeans, who of course control the Conservative Front Bench.
	Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was slightly critical of the role of France. I refer him to the interview given in Newsweek by General Jones, the US four-star general who is currently Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He went out of his way to praise the quality of the French army, describing it as probably the finest expeditionary force in Europe.
	There were animadversions at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech to a paper that was published more than a year ago by some unit somewhere in Germany. I have been as yet unable to find out who is responsible for it—certainly no German Minister is taking responsibility for it—but it will be translated and put in the Library by the Conservatives. I welcome that contribution, and it is good that at long last the Conservatives are translating documents from Europe and understanding how Europe works. They may find that recommendation 21, at the back of that document, states that the only language to be used for any future European military operation should be English. There are other recommendations that would be of great interest to our friends in France, but we will leave Paris to decide whether it wants to take that document, from the thousand papers churned out monthly throughout Europe and the United States, as seriously as the Conservative party has done.
	When considering matters that pertain to our security, we have to look at 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years' time. When we take that wider perspective and consider the rising powers that we can now see around the world equipping themselves with nuclear weapons or even the capacity to operate in space, it is more vital than ever that the two great democratic regions of the world, where the rule of law, open-market economies and liberal democracies are enshrined—namely, the European Union and the United States—co-operate even more closely to secure a peaceful and prosperous 21st century. That is why it is so irresponsible of the Conservative party to spend so much energy trying to drive huge wedges between Europe and the United States. As long as the Labour party has Government responsibility, it will continue to try to bring the European Union and the United States together.
	Tomorrow, our friends across the Atlantic and in the EU of 25 will read this debate with some amazement. The British Conservative party, which since 1945 has devoted time, thought and political skill to strengthening European defence, is now pledged to criticise and undermine every effort to achieve a more coherent and concerted approach for our European allies. Conservative Front Benchers, with their fanatical anti-European opposition, cannot attract any support, even from their own Back Benchers. The debate has been most notable for the fact that more Liberal Democrat Members have attended it than Members from the main Opposition party. The 25 member states of the European Union will be looking at this debate with some interest—[Interruption.] I understand that there may be 25 Conservative Members who have rather more interesting things to work on and discuss tonight. Perhaps some of them could have turned up for this debate.
	This country has always believed in the notion of the EU having a common external policy. A previous Prime Minister believed that Europe should have a common external policy and that "greater depth" should be given to Europe's "internal and external activities" to
	"Fulfil our international responsibility to the causes of freedom, democracy, prosperity and peace."
	In arguing for a common external policy, one of this country's leaders has said that the member states with which we are in joint partnership in Europe should
	"increasingly . . . adopt common positions on world problems and . . . vote together in non-economic international bodies"
	and
	"take more seriously their solemn commitments to consult and take account of their partners' views".
	All those quotes come, of course, from the noble Baroness Thatcher in a paper that she circulated to her European partners in 1984, and it is a mark of how far the Conservative party has moved to the ultra anti-European, anti-Atlantic part of the spectrum that the statements that she made then should now be repudiated by all Conservative Front Benchers.
	Several issues have been raised during the debate. We have heard about an issue that was raised during much of last week—the idea of an operational headquarters at Tervuren, a pleasant suburb of Brussels—but we now understand that that idea will not see the light of day. It has been argued that there will be some loss of control over the deployment of British soldiers, yet in every European treaty since Maastricht, including in the draft for the new constitutional treaty now under discussion, it has been made quite clear that each sovereign nation state in the EU will control the deployment and use of its soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Bernard Jenkin: I should be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he said where the draft treaty says that.

Denis MacShane: As part of the treaty of Nice, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear, it will be up to each European member state to decide whether its soldiers, sailors or airmen are deployed in any European operation.
	The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is not in his place, intervened to say that NATO should give permission before any European state or any coalition of European states take any action. He may want to reflect on the notion that the House of Commons and this sovereign nation should have to seek permission from anyone before deciding to deploy our armed forces in action.

Paul Keetch: The record should be checked. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was saying, as I understood it, that America, not NATO, should give permission before any other country intervened. If he did refer to America—the Secretary of State for Defence is nodding—and the Conservative position is that America should have a right of veto over the deployment of Her Majesty's armed forces, let alone forces from the rest of Europe, that is pretty disgraceful.

Denis MacShane: It is important that we work in partnership and collaboration with our allies—including, of course, the United States—but we are not in the permission game and the Government will certainly take the only decisions that count: those to send any of our armed services into action. That point was underlined in the interview that Ambassador Burns gave on Radio Free Europe when he said:
	"The UK is the closest ally of the US and we have a perfect understanding of each other and we are working closely together and there are no problems between the US and the UK on this issue".
	However, the whole thrust of not just the speech made by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, but the continued activity of the obsessive anti-Europeans who now control the Conservative Front Bench, is to divide the UK from the United States and the UK from our partners in Europe.

Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in this knockabout stuff, but does he not understand that that the declaration made in April by Germany, France, Luxembourg and Belgium on European defence was extremely divisive and has led to profound concern in America and elsewhere? This is not to do with driving wedges; it is a profound concern about the future of European defence. Will the hon. Gentleman take seriously the real anxieties raised by many Opposition Members who want Europe to play a bigger role in its own defence and who understand that the action of Germany, France, Luxembourg and Belgium represents a serious slap in the face for NATO and is likely to cause the gravest confusion?

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is repeating word for word speeches that I have made across the continent. I made exactly those points. I hope that when the necessary 25 signatures have been found, the hon. Gentleman will assume his rightful place as shadow Secretary of State for Defence because he would certainly make a much better fist of it—he would understand Europe and the United States—than the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

Bernard Jenkin: Where was all that said?

Denis MacShane: I repeat my answer. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I can send him chapter and verse of speeches on the record and on the Foreign and Commonwealth website in which I made exactly the point that we have two ways in European defence—NATO, which has stood the test of time and has a big future in front of it, and what we need to do at European level. As a good new Labour MP, I say that there is no need for a third way. I have said that time and again.

Bernard Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the United States agrees with the following statement:
	"The EU should have a common capability for the planning and leadership of operations independent of NATO means and capabilities",
	because that is the Government's policy?

Denis MacShane: The Government's policy remains to build on decisions taken by previous Governments to ensure an effective European contribution. Whether in Operation Alba in Albania, when a European initiative was blocked by the previous Government, or in the Congo, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or East Timor, it is right that European forces should be prepared to accept their responsibilities.
	The Conservatives, as we know, ruined much of the UK's defence capability in the 1990s with their massive cuts. They damaged the alliance with United States by their crass interference in American domestic politics in the middle 1990s. They undermined, if not destroyed, Britain's standing in Europe with their relentless hostility to a constructive partnership with the EU. Above all, they did nothing to stop Milosevic turning the former Yugoslavia into Europe's killing fields. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill reminded the House that the Conservative party, when in power, sought to block Operation Alba. Like Neville Chamberlain, the political godfather to today's isolationist Tory Front Bench, the Conservatives turned their eyes away from the terror and torture of Milosevic. More than 1 million asylum seekers cascaded into northern Europe from Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and even Serbia because the Conservatives refused to come to grips with reality.
	Today, the Conservative party is out on the far right of the extreme end of anti-European politics. While President Bush and our own Prime Minister struggle to defeat fascist terrorism in Iraq, the Conservatives, as we saw in their disgracefully opportunistic motion last week, only want to undermine the United States and our nation for having the guts to take on Saddam's tyranny and terror. Derided in Europe, of no interest to the United States and ignored in our country, today's Tories have nothing to say. This opportunistic, dishonest, badly worded and irrelevant motion is the last gasp of a party that looks into the future and sees no place. One day, a Tory leadership will emerge that is capable of talking sense to Europe and being an effective partner of the United States. Let us all hope that that leadership emerges, if not tonight, as soon as possible. I ask all hon. Members to support the Government amendment and reject the anti-European, divisive motion tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 336.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that NATO is, and should remain, the cornerstone of Europe's collective defence; believes in the importance of European nations building up their military capabilities to contribute more to their defence and security through NATO and the EU; welcomes the development of the European Security and Defence Policy as a part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including its role in undertaking operations where NATO as a whole is not engaged; welcomes the "Berlin Plus" agreement which provides the EU with assured access to NATO planning and presumed access to NATO assets and capabilities for military operations; and welcomes the success of the ESDP operation undertaken in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the continuing military operation in Macedonia and police operation in Bosnia.

Health Care Targets

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to the motion on the effect of Government targets on the provision of heath care. I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Liam Fox: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the Government's obsession with target-setting now pervades almost every aspect of healthcare; believes that the volume of centrally set targets and the way in which these have been imposed is having a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes, since the welfare of the patient becomes a secondary consideration to the achievement of the target; further believes that the imposition of these targets is seriously demoralising the professional staff within the NHS, diverting them from spending time with patients to additional paperwork and bureaucracy; is appalled that pressure on managers to achieve targets has led to distortions in reporting on performance, so that the public has no confidence in claims that are made about achievements in the NHS; and calls on the Government to do away with their reliance on the target-setting culture, to re-invest the money saved on bureaucracy into front line medical care and to trust doctors, nurses and other professional staff to get on with their jobs with minimal interference, in the interests of all of their patients.
	I must say at the outset how bizarre it is that the Secretary of State for Health has not attempted to stay to hear a debate on such an important health issue. I understand that he recently visited the United States to learn about the benefits of its health system. It seems that he is rather more interested in that than in what happens in this House or the national health service.
	The debate revolves around the question of what targets actually are. Most of us would regard targets as quality benchmarks and something against which we could monitor progress. Most of us would say that targets relate to the application of best practice and that they are aspirational. Yet, under the new Labour Government, targets have become something quite different. They have become direct commands in the health care system. They are ministerial diktats meaning that strategic health authorities and primary care trusts are simply the delivery arm of Whitehall acting on ministerial instructions.
	Under the full lexicon of new Labour, we hear of "earned autonomy", which is a wonderful oxymoron, meaning "You can do what you like as long as it's what we tell you to do." We are told that PCTs control 70 per cent. of the budget, but they merely handle 70 per cent. of the budget. That is rather like saying that bank clerks control millions of pounds because they handle millions of pounds, although they have no discretion in what to do with the money. Part of the myth perpetrated by the Government is that they are decentralising the service.
	The problems with targets fall into several distinct categories: their effect on patients and clinical priorities; their effect on integrity and trust in the system; their effect on non-acute services; and their effect on recruitment and morale. Let me begin by talking about the effect on patients and clinical priorities, because all hon. Members will be aware of stories that have been circulating widely about distortions in the system. In September, the BBC broke a story about what was happening in Leeds. It said:
	"Managers at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust say they will only accept referrals from GPs if they are sure patients can be seen within 17 weeks . . . The trust has now written to GPs in Leeds to tell them it will not accept new patients if it means it will breach the outpatient waiting time targets set by the government. In a letter to GPs, the trust warned that patients"
	will have to go elsewhere. It said:
	"We will accept a referral only when we have the capacity to see the patient within the maximum waiting time—which is currently 17 weeks for outpatients by 31 March 2004. We may be unable to accept a referral from your practice."
	The trust had the nerve to say:
	"This is not all about waiting times . . . This is about managing the number of people coming into the trust and improving planning."
	So patients are referred to where it is convenient for the system to see them. In other words, the system is not there to service the patients; the patients are there to service the system. That has been the great cultural corrosion under new Labour.
	Rather more recently, on 13 October this year, the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS trust said about the suspension of specialist pain services in Lincolnshire:
	"The Local Primary Care Trusts and the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust has reached an impasse in negotiations regarding funding of the county-wide specialist pain services. The service has been suspended because capacity of the service is insufficient to meet a growing demand. Faced with an unwillingness on the part of the Primary Care Trusts to invest, and a likelihood of breaching monitored waiting times for new outpatients, a decision was made to suspend the service."
	In other words, if a trust cannot make the targets, it can give the service up entirely and not breach Government guidelines. What sort of ethical basis is that for running a system?
	The consultants at the centre of the problem said that the decision
	"was taken without consultation with clinical personnel and, apart from continued access for patients with cancer pain, is not based on clinical need but rather financial and political criteria."
	In their letter, the consultants also said:
	"There have been a number of instances where pain clinics in the UK have stopped accepting new patients as a means of managing waiting lists, with the recent nationwide survey revealing four clinics spread across the country currently not seeing new patients"—
	not because the patients did not need to be seen, but because it was politically inconvenient for the managers to have to report to Ministers that they could not meet their targets. So the statistics came first and the patients came second.

Hugh Bayley: In my health authority area in North Yorkshire, the number of out-patients waiting longer than 13 weeks has fallen over the past five years from more than 5,000 to 1,000, a fivefold reduction. The figures for the area represented by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) will be similar. Does he think that we should get rid of the out-patient waiting time target? If not, precisely which targets does he suggest the NHS should abandon?

Liam Fox: I do not believe that the service should be forced to work to centrally driven targets determined by Whitehall. It should be up to clinicians to determine which patients are treated, and the priority of that treatment, in their locality. There will need to be a different balance of services in different parts of the country. To attempt to run the service in a one-size-fits-all target-driven culture designed in Whitehall will be catastrophic, as it is in many of the areas I mentioned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Liam Fox: I shall give way in a moment.
	Let us consider what happened in Oxford, for example, where we saw the obscenity of patients sitting in ambulances, queuing by the accident and emergency departments so that they did not breach the four-hour waiting time for accident and emergency. The Government's Commission for Health Improvement ambulance trust review said:
	"One of the reasons for long delays in A&E departments accepting patients from waiting ambulances may be their own need to achieve a target that no patient should wait more than four hours from arrival in A&E to admission . . . This illustrates how targets set for one service may work against good cooperation between services."
	It is not possible to micro-manage a system as complex as the NHS from behind a Minister's desk in Whitehall. It is not possible to design a set of targets and criteria that will allow professional people to exercise their judgment appropriately.

Mark Hendrick: How can a Government determine whether the taxpayer is getting value for money from their health care if the Government do not set the targets? Does he not accept that hospitals throughout the country do not have inexhaustible capacity? If a hospital cannot meet the need in the locality, it is feasible that that patient may have to be treated elsewhere.

Liam Fox: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points and he betrays what is at the heart of the new Labour problem. First, he says that the Government have to set targets to get value for money, but there is no concept of what is appropriate for the patients. The most important thing is not the system but what matters to the patient. Secondly, he mentions patients going elsewhere. It is Conservative policy that patients should move anywhere they want to inside the NHS. Naturally, any policy is constrained by capacity, but patients should be able to exercise that choice themselves. Instead, they are moved around for the convenience of the administrators. That has nothing to do with what patients want or what is good for them. In that scenario, the system comes first and the patients come a very poor second.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his remarks. Will he confirm that for the 1,500 people who were waiting more than 26 weeks in his constituency for a consultant's appointment and who have now been completely taken off any list—no one in his constituency is waiting more than 26 weeks—as a result of our objectives in driving forward those targets, he would abandon all the targets and objectives and we would return to the situation that prevailed before the Labour Government?

Liam Fox: The Secretary of State's question reminds me of what happened to some of my constituents when the Bath Royal United Hospital NHS trust told them that only two patients were waiting more than 18 months anywhere in the country. We were inundated with calls all afternoon from people wanting to know who the other person was. As far as the patients were concerned, many had been waiting for that time, and I intend to deal with the accuracy of the figures.
	The Secretary of State does not understand that activity is being driven by the numbers, not by the clinical importance of the conditions affecting patients. It is not acceptable to get numbers down if it means that the sickest patients might wait longer than those with less important conditions. What is absent from the Government's approach is the idea that the most appropriate people to make decisions for patients are the clinicians who look after them. We all want lower maximum waiting times across the board. That is a universal aim. We want to ensure, however, that that does not result in a clinical distortion by which some of the sickest patients have to wait longer.

David Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Fox: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	One set of Government figures reveals the flaw in the Secretary of State's case. Their targets for seeing cancer consultants are, on the surface, laudable and sensible, but they are about gaining access to a consultant in the first place; they say nothing about when a patient will receive treatment. So let us consider what has happened in cancer treatment.
	According to Department of Health figures produced in September, waiting times for cancer treatment increased in most cases between 1999 and 2002. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, "No, they have not", so let us look at them. Between 1999 and 2002, the average waiting time for treatment for cancer of the oesophagus was up 14.3 per cent.; for cancer of the stomach, it was up 20 per cent.; and for brain cancer, it was up 66.7 per cent. The Government have met their targets for how quickly a patient can see a consultant, but they have increased the length of time before patients receive treatment. What is the point of that?

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman does not mention breast cancer treatment or the initial referral. Constituents of mine have had almost immediate access to both the initial consultation and treatment. Those women would have died but for that development. They welcome the targets because they are the direct beneficiaries of them.

Liam Fox: But if the consequence of all patients who are suspected by their GP of having breast cancer being seen within a maximum waiting time—which, again, on the surface, seems fine—is that the consultants who should be treating those with proven breast cancer are having their activity redirected, there is no clinical gain. It is a question of what is sensible and what is appropriately judged by clinicians.
	With the best will in the world, politicians cannot create a system that is both specific and sensitive enough to deal with individual patients. It is nonsensical if the patients get a maximum waiting time to see a consultant but the waiting time for treatment is lengthened, because that is what will make the difference to the clinical outcome for the patient.

John Reid: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has practised medicine, I say to him that the whole point is that, unless patients are seen early by a consultant, those clinical judgments cannot be made. When we took power, people waited weeks and, in some cases, months to see a consultant, even when the doctor had identified a suspected cancer. Now 98.5 per cent. of all people diagnosed with a suspected cancer see a consultant within two weeks.
	That early appointment is important precisely so that the consultant can then decide, according to their clinical assessment, in what order treatment should occur. But patients have to be seen first, and under the last Conservative Government, even when people had been diagnosed, they waited weeks and months; now they are seen within two weeks. That is the point.

Liam Fox: The Secretary of State is right: that is the point. The point is that it is not how quickly patients are seen that matters for their clinical outcome; it is how quickly they are treated. According to the Government's own figures, the waiting time from being seen to being treated is going up. It is being elongated by the fact that consultants have targets for seeing new patients, not follow-up patients, and there is no Government target for the length of time before treatment.
	I recently attended a meeting with CancerBACUP at which a cancer consultant said that his hospital was making very good progress with cancer doctor numbers. He said, "We now have extra consultants, which is a good thing, except for how we did it. We delayed the retirement date for our outgoing consultant from 31 March to 1 April, brought forward the recruitment date of our new consultant from 1 April to 31 March and gave one of our retired consultants one session a week. As we were measured on 31 March, we had three consultants. Of course, we really have only one, but on paper we have three." It is that sort of statistical manipulation that is so damaging to morale, integrity and trust in the system.

David Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman may have had some contact—in a professional capacity, I hasten to add—with the genito-urinary medicine clinic in Bristol, which I, as a member of the Health Committee, visited a little while ago. We were told that it was turning away 500 people a week because it simply did not have the capacity to treat people with serious infections and sexually transmitted diseases. The Committee, with the support of its Tory members, put forward the view that in such circumstances patients should have access to treatment and care within 48 hours; they should not be turned away to go and infect other people. To their credit, the Government acceded to that request. Were they wrong to do so when we have such a crisis in sexual health?

Liam Fox: That is a very good question because it goes back to what we mean by a target, as I said at the outset. It is fine for the Government to say, "This is what we regard as best practice and it is aspirational", but using targets as a means of forcing activity on the system—an activity designed on a one-size-fits-all basis—does not really work in the real NHS. That is the problem that we are identifying in this debate.
	The targets and the way in which they are interpreted also have an effect on the trust and integrity in the system. In June 2003, in a damning condemnation of the culture of targets, the Audit Commission said:
	"Local managers must want to improve patient care via meeting targets—not manipulate things to theoretically meet targets without real gain. For example, practices such as offering appointments at short notice and restarting waiting times if patients cannot attend comply with DH guidelines, and allow some trusts to achieve targets, but would not be considered fair by patients. Similarly, cancelling high numbers of operations the afternoon before the due date means that the commitment to rearrange within 28 days does not apply, and the Plan target can be met—but again, this is not acting in a way that patients would think fair. Such trusts have lost sight of the real priorities, which are about improving the NHS for patients, not just meeting Government targets."
	In practice, the target culture nurtures target-oriented behaviour.
	Looking at the accuracy of the figures that Ministers are so fond of quoting, the Audit Commission said:
	"A number of trusts were found to be operating in ways that seemed weighted away from the interests of patients. These include the practice of offering appointments to patients at short notice and then, when they are unable to attend, recording this as a 'patient cancellation' and resetting the 'clock' measuring their waiting time to zero."
	The chairman of the commission said:
	"You're about to breach the target, you then tell the Department to phone up 50 per cent. of the people on that waiting list and offer them, surprisingly, admission within the following two weeks, to which of course large numbers say 'Two weeks? I can't do that.' At which point they're told, 'I'm terribly sorry, you have to go back to the beginning of the waiting list" and hence the target is met."
	That is fine if one thinks that the most important thing in the health care system is meeting the targets, but as the Audit Commission clearly said, it does nothing to help patients.
	When the all-party Public Administration Committee reported on the Government's measurements, it said:
	"The danger with a measurement culture is that excessive attention is given to what can be easily measured, at the expense of what is difficult or impossible to measure quantitatively even though this may be fundamental to the service provided (for example, patient care . . . ) There is the further danger that the demands of measurement may be so consuming of time and effort that they detract from the pursuit of a service's underlying purpose. The measurement culture is also in danger of threatening standards."
	That is a Labour-dominated Committee.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: As a member of the Public Administration Committee, I should point out that we went on to say that we had found numerous cases where figures were being blatantly fiddled and people were lying to cover up the culture that my hon. Friend has just mentioned. Does he agree that that is happening?

Liam Fox: The interesting point, following further investigation of the details, was what the culture meant to patients in those situations. In May 2002, the Bath Royal United Hospital trust found that more than 2,000 out-patients waiting more than 13 weeks for a consultant appointment had disappeared from official lists—at that time the trust reported just 22 such outpatients. A lot of patients who were genuinely waiting were not, on paper, waiting at all.
	In autumn 2002, after a strategic health authority investigation, the Good Hope Hospital trust in Birmingham found that 30 inpatients had waited over 15 months for treatment and six outpatients had waited longer than 26 weeks for treatment, but those figures had not been correctly recorded. In March 2003, the strategic health authority for South Manchester University Hospitals trust found that long waiters—those who had been waiting longer than 18 months—were simply excluded from returns, and other patients were being inappropriately redesignated from the acute waiting list to the planned admissions list.
	We all know from our constituency mailbags that those are not unusual cases. Ministers will say that they are isolated examples and that the managers in question must be sorted out because they have no place in the NHS. Those managers are merely carrying out the tasks that they know are required of them by central Government in the target culture. It is no use Ministers saying, "It has nothing to do with us," because managers know that if they fail to meet their targets or they breach the Government guidelines, they will get a phone call from someone in the Department of Health telling them how they ought to be running their hospital and which patients ought to be seen. That is simply not acceptable.
	Earlier this year, we had the great accident and emergency farce. The figures published by the Department showed that the proportion of patients in England who spent less than four hours in A and E had risen to 82.4 per cent. Those were wonderful figures—we would all love to think that patients did not wait in accident and emergency—and they were released on 20 June. However, the BBC programme "Panorama" and the British Medical Association showed that they were nonsense and did not accord with what was happening in the real world. According to the BMA, two thirds of accident and emergency departments in England established special arrangements during the monitoring period, which they knew about in advance. Preliminary results from a questionnaire sent to accident and emergency staff found that the temporary use of medical and nursing staff was the most common tactic, followed by staff working double or extended shifts. Fourteen per cent. of respondents were aware of routine surgery being cancelled so that extra beds were available that week. The majority believed that efforts to meet the Government's targets distorted clinical priorities in accident and emergency.
	It is nonsensical to operate a service by saying, "We know you're going to be measured this week. If you can meet the targets that week, whatever you have to do to do so is fine. The Government will be able to tick a box and say that we've met the targets." In fact, that distorted activities in other areas and other patients suffered. Nobody believed that the exercise was genuine or sustainable and, of course, the following week, things went back to what they were before. It is an Alice in Wonderland way to run a health service, and results in a culture of distortion and deceit.
	Other services damaged by that culture are the non-acute services and the services for which the Government do not have a centrally driven target. The Prime Minister keeps telling us that public services are about "schools and hospitals", which betrays a great deal of ignorance of what happens in the health service, as most of our health care is provided not in hospitals but in the community. The obsession with acute hospital targets means that, far too often, too little attention is given to other services. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) will talk about the effect of targets on primary care in his winding-up speech, but while Ministers have developed obsessive-compulsive disorders about hips, knees and cataracts, mental health services have continued to deteriorate. The so-called sexual health strategy is a disaster. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has left the Chamber, because it would have been interesting to learn from him just how bad things have got for the GUM clinic in Bristol. The Government's immunisation strategy is in tatters, and infectious diseases such as tuberculosis have reached record levels. While diabetes becomes ever more prevalent, screening and care constantly lag behind that trend.
	We also need to consider the effect of targets on staff morale, recruitment and retention. If there is one thing that shows the Government's lack of understanding of the complex way in which the health service works it is their absurd star rating system, which is designed to demoralise people, tells us nothing of any value about hospitals, and ought to be scrapped. When the star ratings, in their crude way, are applied to hospitals, they often create a misleading picture. Hospitals are treated as single units, not a complex interaction of services. Just because a hospital has a poor gynaecology service does not mean it will have a poor cardiology service. Just because it has an excellent ear, nose and throat service does not mean that it will have an excellent orthopaedic service. The star rating system does not tell patients anything of any value, but it can, in many cases, have a demoralising effect on staff in those hospitals. The chairman of the BMA, Jim Johnson, said:
	"Nobody should use star ratings to judge how well a hospital is doing. They measure little more than hospitals' ability to meet political targets and take inadequate account of clinical care or factors such as social deprivation. It is grossly unfair on staff working in low-rated trusts that public confidence in them is being undermined".
	The Times carried out an investigation in May and found that a third of English hospital trusts with the highest mortality rates were the best performers in Government ratings. To put that in context, we might consider the high level of hospital-acquired infections and what the Government's figures tell us about the relationship between infection and cleanliness. Fourteen of the 20 trusts in England with the highest levels of hospital-acquired infections received the Government's top rating for cleanliness. It is nonsense for a trust to get the top rating for cleanliness while, at the same time, putting patients at the highest risk of getting a hospital-acquired infection. What on earth does that tell patients and doctors about the quality of the service?

David Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House about the links between levels of hospital-acquired infections and the outsourcing arrangements in place at many of those hospitals, a good number of them dating back to the period when his party was in office?

Liam Fox: That is one of the most absurd arguments that I have ever heard. If a trust has contracted-out cleaning, but the hospitals are filthy, why pay the contractors? It should get someone else in to do the job. One of the biggest problems with hospital-acquired infections is simply cultural. Transmission of infection between patients has nothing to do with expenditure but a great deal to do with washing one's hands. For a doctor or nurse to wash their hands after seeing one patient and before seeing the next does not require a Government grant. It is part of the culture of the system—it is not helped by any Government target and is good practice for professionals who deal with patients. It does not require Government intervention, but it does require a bit of thought about patient care.
	One area where morale has been particularly hard hit is general practice. Medeconomics, the specialist health magazine, reported in September this year:
	"There are now fewer GPs per patient than five years ago. In 1997 there were 54.3 GPs for every 100,000 people, compared to 54.1 in 2001."
	Figures published this month show that the number of vacancies has gone up. More than two thirds of GP vacancies were unfilled for more than six months, and the number of such vacancies has increased by 31 per cent. since 2002. Dr. John Chisholm of the BMA's general practitioners committee said:
	"We are not surprised by this increased vacancy rate . . . in England. Indeed it matches the findings of our own GP vacancy rate survey . . . The upward trend is a matter of great concern."
	Finally, targets have another cost. A target culture breeds bureaucrats in the same way as micro-organisms breed in a culture dish. If a target is set, it must be monitored, the results of that monitoring passed to someone else, and so on. Co-ordinators have to co-ordinate other co-ordinators, and the gap between decision making and delivery is filled with an ever-growing volume of interference, control and obstruction. It is no wonder that more people joined the Government payroll in the past year than work in the European Commission—there are hundreds of posts in monitoring units, delivery units, assessment teams and co-ordination groups. The overall number of public sector workers has risen by 0.75 million in the past five years so that they now account for one in four of the work force. It is little wonder that the Government's extra spending and our extra taxes have not resulted in clear benefits for patients.
	Targets are not about patients but about politics. The NHS is being run to suit the spin of the Government machine, not the clinical needs of patients. Political expediency is given priority over the need for care. New Labour has corroded the integrity of the NHS. It has put statistics before patients, demoralising NHS staff—the staff I trained and worked with, who are becoming increasingly difficult to recruit. This is no longer about the health of the public but about the political health of the Government. And they told us that things could only get better.

John Reid: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the Government's record extra investment in the National Health Service; supports the Government's policy of linking investment to reform; notes that setting targets and monitoring performance against them are a vital part of the accountability process; welcomes the Government's determination to devolve power in the health service to the front line backed by three-year allocations of money to NHS organisations and clear delivery targets for the next three years; welcomes the positive effect of the right targets on staff morale, motivation and standards; welcomes the increases in capacity and workforce numbers, the greater availability of new and better drugs, the shorter waiting times and the greater choice available to all patients; notes that expenditure on NHS management as a proportion of the total NHS budget is falling; and supports the Government's commitment to a high quality NHS, responsive to the needs of patients, available to all free at the point of need."
	Well, now we know. We knew before tonight that the Conservative party was committed to reducing the amount of money in our health service, diverting money from the NHS to subsidise people who could afford to go private. However, now we know two other things. We know that the Conservatives oppose the increase in NHS staff numbers—the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) revealed that in the last part of his speech—including extra doctors and so on. The Conservative spokesman gave a pledge that our targets, which have resulted in extra doctors and nurses, reduced waiting times, increased finance, and made sure that there are more operations for more people, who get them more quickly, will all be scrapped under a Conservative Government. That pledge is significant, and it is a dividing line to which I shall return. It is ironic that the Opposition, who regard themselves—on what basis has never been clear to me—as competent in a managerial and business sense should argue that there should be no centrally set targets whatsoever. It is one thing to argue sensibly for a balance between devolution of operational capability to the front line, which I fully support, but, on the other hand, it is something else entirely to argue that there should be no drive or strategic objectives set from the centre. It is an extraordinary statement from any party that claims to have any knowledge of any organisation, public or private.
	It is ironic that the debate is taking place on the very day that the Leader of the Opposition set Wednesday as a target date for his opponents, who have a target of 25 letters being submitted. It is ironic that today we are debating a Conservative motion deploring targets. [Interruption.] I am sorry. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is getting frustrated. I hope I have not kept him away from letter writing or from composing a personal manifesto. He has a chance to shine tonight and I hope he takes it, because perhaps greatness awaits. I know that there is some scepticism about his opportunities and his chances, but the Opposition are running out of options, so he must have some chance of greatness in the coming period.
	We make no apology for targets in pursuit of excellence. Targets bring—

John Bercow: Useless windbag.

John Reid: I take it very badly that such an eminence grise of the House complains about my contributions. We await the day when the hon. Gentleman is standing at the Government Dispatch Box, but it may be a considerable time before any of the Opposition arrive on the Treasury Bench.
	Targets bring focus, delivery and accountability. They are foreign to the Opposition because they also bring equity, which has never been a prime objective of the Conservatives. Of all the presentational aspects tonight, the one that grieves me most, though it is not unexpected, is the way that the efforts and achievements of 1.4 million staff who treat 1 million patients every 36 hours have been demeaned and condemned by the Opposition spokesman.

Liam Fox: rose—

John Reid: I shall give way in a moment. Every improvement that has taken place in the national health service has been brought about because of the determination and commitment of those who work in it. To hear every single improvement disparaged as the result of lying, fiddling and cheating by the NHS staff says more about the party that makes those allegations than about the NHS staff. I give way to the hon. Member for Woodspring if he wishes to withdraw half of his speech tonight.

Liam Fox: It is a great pity that the Secretary of State must resort to such tactics and puts into our mouth words that were never there. It is especially disgusting, if I may say so, that he tries to suggest that we would denigrate the work of staff in the NHS. As I just said, they are the staff with whom I trained and worked. Unlike the Secretary of State, I have worked in the NHS. It is the staff who are keeping the NHS afloat, despite Government interference. The right hon. Gentleman might want to ask himself why the Opposition trust the professionals to exercise their judgment on patients, but he does not.

John Reid: Every one of the words that I quoted was taken from the hon. Gentleman's speech—he can check Hansard: "fiddling", "cheating" and "lying". I could have gone further. He referred, at least by implication and possibly explicitly—we will read it in Hansard—to managers as micro-organisms being spawned. Not only did he use such language, but in almost 36 minutes he could not bring himself to admit that there had been any achievements or improvements by NHS staff.
	I admit there are some deficiencies—I shall come to them later in my speech. I know the size of the challenge that we were left by the previous Government. I will not pretend that everything is all right, but an NHS whose every achievement is condemned by the Opposition is not an NHS that will march in the street for the return of a Conservative Government.
	As anyone involved in any organisation, public or private, knows, targets bring focus, concentration of effort and delivery, as they drive effort and ingenuity towards achievable ends. Targets bring accountability because they not only distil the priorities of the public, but set the criteria by which promises can be measured. They bring a degree of equity because, for the first time, they provide the public with an equal right to access, and a right to judge whether the politicians are assisting in delivering an improved service, as they promised. Targets provide a degree of equity, not a privilege that only a few can buy—a point to which I shall return—but a right for everyone.
	People want to know how quickly they can see a GP or how quickly they can have an operation. They want to know that we are doing all we can to reduce those times, and they want to know whether we are succeeding in reducing those times. The abolition of all those targets, as promised tonight by the Conservatives, would deprive the NHS of the drive and the resources to better the service that it gives, and would remove from the public any indication of whether the Government and the NHS are improving at all.
	Furthermore, the absurd separation and implied dichotomy between the time that one has to wait, often in pain, for an operation, and the quality of the service that one perceives oneself as having received is a separation and dichotomy that can be made up only in the minds of those who, like some Opposition Members, have never had to wait for an operation because they have found other ways to jump the queue and get it quickly.

Andrew Turner: Where is the equity that the right hon. Gentleman has guaranteed to deliver, when constituents of mine have to travel three hours in each direction and spend £90 to get three children to an NHS dentist?

John Reid: There is a distinct lack of equity in that situation. I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Isle of Wight. I have no hesitation in saying that we have a mountain to climb in NHS dentistry. We have a huge challenge in respect of public health issues. Sexually transmitted diseases present us with a major challenge. All these things are true. I do not claim tonight that everything in the NHS is as it should be. I say to the House that things in the NHS are vastly improved over what they were six years ago, in every conceivable direction.

Liam Fox: On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), the Government have been in office for six years. In 1999 at his party conference, the Prime Minister specifically promised that within two years no one would be denied access to an NHS dentist. What went wrong?

John Reid: We are trying, in circumstances not of our own making—in circumstances that we inherited—to improve almost every aspect of our health service, which was left under-invested, underfunded and in decline over a period of almost 25 years. Only last month we put another £35 million into NHS dentistry to try and improve the position that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight described.
	There are many in the House who, from a position of authority and commitment to the NHS, could criticise us for not doing enough, but the Conservatives are the last people entitled to do so, since their policy is to reduce public expenditure as a whole and, even from that reduced amount, to divert money from the NHS to subsidise those who can already afford to jump the queue by going private, through the patient passport.

John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

John Reid: Of course, and I will listen with a view to learning from the hon. Gentleman how great men should speak.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I clarify his position, for the avoidance of doubt? In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Secretary of State's attitude is that if the Prime Minister makes a promise in 1999 to be delivered in 2001, and in 2003 it still has not been delivered, that is the fault of a Government who left office in 1997. Is that his position?

John Reid: No, I did not say that. If we make a promise and fail to deliver on it, we should say from the Dispatch Box, "We have not delivered on that promise. We continue to try to do so." But it is not irrelevant to explain to people that although we have free will, we do not, as an old philosopher said, operate in circumstances of our own choosing: those circumstances were largely created by the Conservatives. In this party, we suffer from the great disadvantage of knowing that when our leaders make a promise, they are liable to have to answer, a few years hence, on whether it was delivered. The Conservative party has the good fortune to change its leaders every so often, so none of them can ever be held accountable for anything, let alone promises that they made 24 hours ago. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

John Reid: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, there is a great deal of nervous energy among Conservative Members at the moment.
	Is the Conservatives' problem that we have set targets or—for them, it is a bigger problem—that we are meeting those targets?

Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the state of NHS dentistry is due not to the resources that are being ploughed in or the commitment of the Prime Minister, but to the fact that it takes six years to train a dentist?

John Reid: Any fair and balanced person would accept that the Conservatives' introduction of a contract that alienated the whole dentistry profession has had long-term consequences. That is why, despite the comments of the learned doctor, the hon. Member for Woodspring, I take some small and modest satisfaction from the fact that doctors and consultants gave us an overwhelming vote in acceptance of the contracts that we proffered. That is because they achieve a balance between giving central direction and setting strategic objectives and recognising the flexibility, independence, integrity and professionalism of doctors and consultants, so that they can contribute towards a general corporate effort that recognises their individual contribution and autonomy in so doing. We are achieving a great deal in that respect, despite the nay-sayers.
	I wonder why Conservative Members decided to decry not only the targets, but all the achievements and improvements of the past six years, which, for all their partisan comments, they must know are going on. The answer lies in what the hon. Member for Woodspring is alleged to have said at his party conference—that if the Government were to succeed in improving the national health service, in line with the plans that I set out, the Conservatives would be politically "flummoxed". I am not sure that that was the word that he used, but I remember that it started with an F. He is probably right. His party is in a state of complete flummox—indeed, I would go so far as to say that they are well and truly flummoxed.
	The truth is that the investment that we have put in, the systems reform that we are carrying out and the strategic objectives and targets that we have outlined have had a dramatic effect on the health service. Unlike the hon. Member for Woodspring, I shall try to give a balanced picture. I have already accepted that in some areas we have not made the advances that we should, but it is reasonable to point out that in 1997, when we took office, there was no standard waiting time to see a GP—no objective had been set—because so many people were waiting too long. Now, nine out of 10 people can be seen within 48 hours. In 1997, when the hon. Gentleman's party had been in power for some considerable time, more than 30,000 people were waiting for operations: last month, there were 31. That is the result not of lying, cheating and fiddling managers, but of a huge, determined effort by NHS staff, increased capacity and changes and reforms in the system. Making that reduction from 30,000 to 30 is surely an achievement by the NHS that even the most grudging Conservative spokesman should be prepared to flag up and offer an accolade.
	I remember the days, not that long ago, when Conservative Members wondered aloud whether they would be able to give a guarantee that no one would wait more than two years for an operation. Now, almost no one waits for more than a year. By March next year, I hope that no one will wait more than nine months; by the following year, I hope that no one will wait for more than six months. Those are the targets that I set. Let me say, because it is relevant to one of the cases that was mentioned, that even if we achieve a six-month maximum wait, it will be six months too long for me. We should be aspiring to give people what anyone with large amounts of money would demand—that is, an operation within weeks, sometimes days. I take some satisfaction from the fact that seven out of 10 patients are admitted for treatment within three months of joining the in-patient waiting list. More than 90 per cent. of people—almost double the rate under the Conservatives—are seen, diagnosed and treated within four hours in accident and emergency departments. It is simply not true, as the hon. Member for Woodspring implies, that the achievement of that target was a one-week wonder.

Liam Fox: It was.

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman repeats the calumny. In fact, it has been maintained for five months consecutively. It is not one week's effort by a bunch of fiddling and lying staff, but a sustained effort from March until now. Indeed, I can tell the House that in August, the last month for which we have figures, the average was 90.3 per cent. We should celebrate that achievement by NHS staff, not decry them at every opportunity.
	Although such successes do not completely transform the health service—we will be years in that job—they remind us of the horrific mess that the Conservative party made of it when it was in power. I am not in the least complacent. We have further work to do to improve access to accident and emergency, GPs and practice nurses. Yes, on occasion people have used methods that none of us would condone to achieve targets or to pretend that they have done so. I recently condemned those methods in front of an audience of 500 or 600 GPs, saying that they are not only unwanted, but deleterious to the whole service, as well as patients. However, they are not the norm. The hon. Member for Woodspring implied that the Audit Commission's report says nothing but that all the targets had been met only by wholesale cheating and lying. That is a complete misrepresentation. I recommend that he and his hon. Friends read it again to get a more balanced picture.
	Of course, we have to shorten the waits for admission to hospitals even more than we have done already. As I said, we want to achieve nine months next year and six months in the year after that. But nobody is helped by an Opposition who have clearly broken away from the post-war consensus and, in pursuit of their political objectives, claim that the NHS is incapable of improvement. Another aspect of that argument is to say that the volume of targets and their rigid centralised structure stifle local innovation.
	Again, the truth, when it is pushed too far falls into error, as Nye Bevan said. I agree that there has to be a balance between central objectives and local decentralisation, and operational autonomy at the front line. Surely we would all agree with that. However, claiming that any centrally set objectives and targets are nothing more than a stifling of all local autonomy is different. That is similar to saying that the only way in which to run a business or a concern is along the lines of an anarchist convention, whereby everybody has to decide what they want without any central objective being laid out strategically.
	It is simply not true that the volume of targets in the national health service is so immense that it stifles all local initiative. The Department of Health has a budget of more than £60,000 million and 62 targets. That is roughly one target for every £1,000 million that we spend. No reasonable person would consider that to be excessive. Of course, if doctors genuinely believed that there was a contradiction of their oath or an undermining of their clinical position, we would discuss that with them and, if that was inadvertently happening, be prepared to reconsider. We did that with the accident and emergency services when doctors said that reaching a 100 per cent. target would remove the necessary clinical decision making and autonomy. Of course, we were prepared to change.
	Our success has been maintained only because we have combined central targets with power and resources that are devolved to the front line to give health professionals and managers the freedom to innovate in pursuing the objectives and targets.

Stephen McCabe: Clearly, it is true that no reasonable person would take the view of tracking the money that my right hon. Friend outlined. However, someone who is on tape at a closed Conservative party meeting, telling people that his strategy is to talk down and run down the NHS as a pretext for dismantling it would have to ridicule targets. He would need the ensuing chaos to achieve his ambitions.

John Reid: Exactly. In such straitened times, we are all obliged to help the Conservative party. First, I advise Conservative Members that if they want to call emergency debates, they should not choose the subject of the health service. Secondly, if they choose it, they would do better to change their policy. The hon. Member for Woodspring may believe that he is ploughing a furrow towards the leadership of the Conservative party, but he is digging a grave for the party in the country because his animosity towards the national health service and all the improvements is so difficult to hide that it is obvious to everyone.

David Taylor: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that perhaps he has been a little unfair to the Conservative party? Our NHS framework for mental ill health might benefit from some of the targets that the Opposition have set themselves in trying to reduce the number of people who suffer from chronic panic attacks to below 25. Is not that an admirable target?

John Reid: If I have been unfair to the Opposition in any way, I am sorry. Although our team of Ministers maintain above all that NHS priorities are those of the public and the Government, and that fulfilled targets make a genuine difference to people's lives, we would be the first to accept that we sometimes fall short. One example has been mentioned tonight and we have much work to do on that. We also fall short in other cases. However, even when we fall short of 100 per cent. success, the significant improvements mean that people are hugely better off than they were under a Conservative Government.
	The Opposition celebrate every time we fall short. That happened earlier this year, when we had hoped that, by March, nine out of 10 patients who wanted to see a doctor would be offered an appointment in 48 hours. We fell short of that, as one or two newspapers noted, and the Opposition celebrated our failure to reach the 90 per cent. target. We fell short; we achieved only 88 per cent. success. We therefore missed by a fraction. However, the achievement remained a huge stride forward from the position that we inherited from the Conservative Government whereby only half the patients were seen by a doctor in 48 hours. Even when we miss the target marginally, there is a vast improvement for the people who matter—the patients.
	What exactly motivates the Opposition to keep raising such subjects? They cannot be doing so to add to the coherence and motivation of their troops, who have little love or respect for the NHS. Is it right for the Opposition to complain that we have more than 55,000 extra nurses? Is that a rightful complaint for a responsible Opposition to make? Should we really consider nearly 14,000 more doctors towards our target as a great failure? Is it truly a cause for regret that in 2000–01, there were nearly 300,000 more in-patient operations than in 1996–97, when the Conservatives left office? As I said earlier, 98 per cent. of those unfortunate enough to be suspected of having cancer can now see a specialist in a fortnight—half as many again as when the Conservatives were in power. Are all those achievements truly a source of disappointment to the Conservative spokesman?

Liam Fox: Since the Secretary of State wants to give the balanced picture this evening, I ask him the following question. If there are 14,000 extra doctors and it takes five years to train a doctor and the Government have been in office for six years, how many began their training under the previous Government?

John Reid: Some did and some have come from abroad. Yet as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have more vacancies than ever. Let me explain that conundrum. [Laughter.] I am trying to be helpful to the laughing cavalier, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who obviously finds it difficult to hold two concepts in his head at the same time. He finds it difficult to understand how we can have more doctors than ever and more vacancies. The answer is easy. We have more doctors but we have created more posts than ever. That should not be a cause for complaint.
	The application of targets for quicker access to cancer treatment has helped to cut death rates from cancer in this country by nearly 9 per cent. Does the hon. Member for Woodspring believe that the figures are being fiddled by people not dying when they should? No one can question the figures. We have cut deaths from cancer by nearly 9 per cent.
	Let us consider coronary heart disease. No patient now waits longer than nine months for heart surgery, compared with 2,700 in March 1997. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that those 2,700 people view targets as a mistake? Does that apply to those who have been helped because targets for quicker access to treatment for coronary heart disease has cut mortality rates by almost 19 per cent. in the past three years?
	The details that I have outlined should be cause for celebration. We should raise the roof because the efforts of NHS staff have reduced cancer deaths by 9 per cent. and coronary heart deaths by 19 per cent. To my knowledge, that significant figure has not been replicated anywhere else in the world.
	Why do the Conservatives need to misrepresent the position? Why do they have to run down the successes of the NHS instead of presenting a balanced picture? They have to do that to justify their plans to run down the NHS. They need to create the illusion of irredeemable failure inside the NHS to justify their craving to subsidise private health care outside the NHS. What they plan is simple: it is not a patient passport for the many, but an exit visa from the NHS for the few who are well off.
	More to the point, that exit visa will be paid for by the rest of us with longer waits, more distress, fewer operations, fewer doctors, fewer nurses and no targets, as the Conservatives have confirmed tonight. There will be no standards by which we will drive our health service. As always, the Conservatives have contrived, after great thought, to abandon their so-called compassionate conservatism—a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one—and return to the old policy for the few to be paid for at the expense of the many. [Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for Woodspring shouts, "Rubbish." The suggestion that our old folk should find almost £2,000 if they want a quicker cataract operation or over £5,000 if they want a quicker hip operation could have come only from the Conservative party in this country. The idea that anyone who needs an early bypass should get it early by virtue of their ability to pay over £9,500 is completely in tune with the Conservatives' philosophy and completely out of tune with the sentiments of people in this country.
	The Tories' policy is not a matter of increasing choice for the many; it is cheque-book choice for the few, which they have come back to as ever. Our answer is to reduce waiting times for everyone by investing, reforming and driving the NHS in partnership with its patients and staff. It is to deliver better care, more quality and more operations for more people more quickly than ever before.
	The Conservative answer is diverting investment from the NHS into the hands of those privileged enough to be able to afford the purchase of priority treatment while extending the waiting times for the others. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woodspring asks about the diagnostic and treatment centres, where I am purchasing in the private sector in bulk and delivering free for every single person in this country. I am not asking people to buy earlier operations by spending their own money if they have it or to wait longer if they do not. That is the difference between him and me. I will not be constrained by dogma.
	I will be prepared to deliver health care wherever it can be provided, always provided that it is built on the foundation of the NHS of equal access to health care free at the point of need, but the hon. Gentleman and his party, driven by dogma, can come only to the one solution, which is to divert money from the NHS to the few people who can afford to pay the other half of the costs of the operation in the private sector. That is less choice for the many and the cheque-book choice of earlier operations for the few, subsidised by the taxpayer.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for tonight; I thank him for what he did. He has provided us with the real dividing line in British politics, which will run from now to the general election. That dividing line is between those of us on the Labour Benches who believe in a national health service free at the point of need and those on the Tory side who believe in subsidising those who can afford to pay for health care and the privileged few in this country. I tell the hon. Gentleman this: when it comes to that choice and that great dividing line, the vast majority of the people of this country will be on our side.

Paul Burstow: As I listened to the debate unfold and to the arguments about target setting in the NHS, it increasingly came into my mind that perhaps the biggest target we are debating is the Conservative party. That is our difficulty tonight: there are many distractions that have resulted in many choosing to be elsewhere and not to listen to the valid criticisms of targets that have been made by Conservative Front Benchers.
	I will try to deal with those points, but first I want to place on record my party's appreciation of the NHS and its staff for delivering better health care for the vast majority of our citizens. The hard work of front-line staff deserves to be applauded, but all too often—perhaps inevitably—that does not happen in these debates. As constituency Members, we receive correspondence from constituents who had bad experiences of the NHS. That distorts our impression of what is happening in the NHS, but the truth is that the public are strongly committed to the principle of health care free on the basis of need, as are the Liberal Democrats.
	Many who have experienced acute hospital care, in particular, in the NHS are seeing a difference as a consequence of the extra investment that is going in. That is extra investment that the Liberal Democrats had the courage and conviction to vote for, and to argue for at the general election. We are delighted that, at long last, that extra investment is arriving and beginning to bear fruit. We hope that it will continue to bear fruit in developing patient care.
	Tonight's debate is about targets. Reference has already been made to the Audit Commission report, which, earlier this year, rightly shed a strong light on some darker and more disturbing aspects of the target-setting culture that the Government have introduced, not just in the NHS, but right across the board in public services. The debate is a welcome opportunity to discuss the targets and the damage that they can cause to the way in which priorities are set and the way in which health care needs are being met.
	It is perhaps worth stressing that there is nothing new about target setting in the NHS. Indeed, the Conservatives, when in government, started it a long time ago—one has only to think of the patients charter—and their ideas continued through to their 1997 manifesto and to their 2001 manifesto with their patient guarantee proposals. However, under Labour, target setting has been developed into a pervasive and corrosive tool of ministerial control of every aspect of the way in which the NHS delivers care.
	Performance in the NHS needs to be measured—of course it does—and the Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that he should be setting strategic goals for the delivery of health care, but the reality is that we are not setting strategic goals for our health care system or for the health improvement outcomes that we wish to see for our population. We are micro-managing detailed aspects of health care delivery. That is not strategic management but detailed micro-management.
	The targets should be evidence-based and they should be outcomes-focused, but to my knowledge the Government have never published any systematic research evidence of the efficacy of the targets that they have set to date. Indeed, I wonder whether the Secretary of State, even at this stage, would be prepared to subject all the 62 targets that he has in place to evaluations and appraisals by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Perhaps then we would see whether they really deliver a clinical benefit and better outcomes for the patient. Will he make that offer tonight? Perhaps NICE could look at those targets.

John Reid: I am not sure that NICE would be the appropriate body to survey all the targets but, as far as I can see, an almost endless array of bodies already examines them, inside and outside Government. I am continually making representations to those bodies, through the Health Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Audit Commission and, now, the Commission for Health Audit and Inspection. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the target results are not hidden under a bushel. I could write to him listing the bodies to which we must supply answers.

Paul Burstow: I look forward to receiving the letter, in which I hope the Secretary of State will also cite the evidence base underpinning each target. The Liberal Democrats have raised that on a number of occasions, but today we have been given no answers to satisfy us or many people outside.
	The Public Accounts Committee has examined target setting, not just in the context of the health service but more widely. In a recent report, the Committee said:
	"What we found, however, is that these very laudable aims are in many cases not being fulfilled nor widely recognised as such by those on the front line whose job it is to deliver them. This is not least because of the lack of proper integration between the building of an organisation's capacity through what we call 'the performance culture' and tracking quantitative achievement in the public services through the 'measurement culture'. The result has been tension between those charged with centralised responsibility and those who are responsible for dispersed delivery of public services."
	That is at the heart of this debate. I think that all hon. Members believe that performance management in the NHS must deliver the very best care for the population, but targets do not do that. Targets measure quantifiable items, which are the easiest things to measure. That is the fundamental weakness, and I am sure that we shall hear more about it when the Conservative spokesman winds up the debate.

Liam Fox: The Secretary of State asserted that patients cannot possibly determine the quality of services offered to them without Government targets. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is completely untrue? There is a world of difference between measurements, best practice, and the centrally, rigidly driven targets—in effect, management commands—used by the current Government.

Paul Burstow: What matters is whether we are making a difference to the health care outcomes of individual patients. I am talking about not just their experience of the system, but whether it adds years to, or saves, their lives. That is what this should be about, but unfortunately the targets being set all too often do not deliver it.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Burstow: I will give way shortly, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a while. I suspect that I shall say several things on which he will want to comment.
	Of course we need a performance culture in the NHS. What gets in the way is the measurement culture identified by the Public Accounts Committee—what could be described as a targets and tick-box culture. Too many of the current targets seem to be based on the findings of focus groups, and on process and experience—although experience matters—rather than on patient outcomes. Ministers talk, as the Secretary of State has tonight, about devolution and earned autonomy, but behind and belying all that is the talk of targets. NHS trusts can do whatever they like, provided that they hit the targets. That is the constraint. That is the straitjacket in which the NHS is being required to operate, and in which foundation trusts will be obliged to operate if they ever come into being. It gets in the way of innovation, initiative and clinical judgment. If I may put it simply, what gets measured gets done.
	Accident and emergency waiting times are a case in point. That target, which has been mentioned by Members on both sides of the House today, is based on a snapshot taken over a single week. It happened in trusts in my area, and I should be more than happy for the Secretary of State to say something about it when he writes to me. The NHS knew that it was happening, so operations were cancelled, and beds were freed as a result. Agency staff were brought in to increase capacity during that week.

John Reid: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been genuinely misled by some of the reporting. Yes, there was a snapshot target that was published, but the level of 90 per cent. and above has been maintained in every month before and after that. I can send him the figures, if he wishes, and publish them. The week of the snapshot produced the highest level—I think that it was 92 per cent.—but it has now been 90 per cent. for five months. That was not a one-off.

Paul Burstow: I look forward to the Secretary of State's letter. Perhaps he will also explain the methodology used for the capture of the information, so that we can be confident that it uses a reliable measure. I must say that the analysis that I have read of the way in which the scheme has operated so far told us nothing, except that the best time to go to an A and E department was while the snapshot was being taken. If the Secretary of State can provide the information, I will more than happily acknowledge the achievement, if it is an achievement.
	Another example is the target on GP access time, which is even worse in some ways. It is a classic political target. Of course, we all want to see our GP more quickly when we are unwell—no one would dispute that—but the target does not measure that. It measures the time until the first appointment. It makes no difference if the first offered appointment is inconvenient and cannot be kept. The box gets ticked, the target gets hit, but it misses the point completely, and that is the problem with the targets that are being set.
	The cancer diagnostic waiting time target—the two-week wait—is a classic case of piecemeal target setting that fails to improve cancer survival rates because it fails to look at the whole patient pathway. Of course, it is stressful to have to wait a long time for a cancer diagnosis. I have no doubt about that but, as The Lancet has reported, diagnosis followed by a long wait for treatment does not help a person's chances of surviving cancer.
	Currently, there are few published statistics, although we have heard some of them mentioned tonight, on the time it takes from diagnosis to treatment, except in the case of breast cancer, for example. Such selective publishing of performance data serves only to reinforce the impression that targets are a proxy for delivery, and that they are designed to capture headlines, not to do the important job of saving lives and improving the quality of patients' lives.
	On its own, speeding up diagnosis diverts resources from treatment. It is a wasteful and dangerous approach in isolation because those targets distort priorities and get in the way of whole-systems thinking and person-centred care. That concern is expressed by clinicians, not just politicians.
	Targets can be misleading. They can give the public a false sense of comfort, whether it is the overall star ratings or the patient environment action team inspections. Those are often presented by Ministers as dealing with issues of cleanliness and hygiene, yet cleanliness is just one of the 19 categories in the PEAT standards. The scoring system is such that a hospital rated badly on cleaning could still get a green light from the scheme. Indeed, the scoring for cleanliness is self-assessed and audited by the NHS trust itself—hardly an objective and independent measure of what has been done on the ground. There is no role for Commission for Health Improvement audited inspection.
	It came as no surprise that so many green light hospitals topped the league for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, infections. Just last year, a report by the Commission for Health Improvement said this about an inspection that it did in West Dorset General Hospitals NHS trust:
	"The trust has experienced a substantial increase in MRSA infections in the last three years. The infections have led to further problems including ward closures. The trust identified a number of risk factors for MRSA infection, but reports that there was only limited success in instituting control measures, primarily because of resource issues. Staff told CHI that the increase in activity and the pressure on meeting targets has resulted in staff not having the time to get the basic infection control procedures in place".
	Because of targets, they do not have the time to deliver essential basic good standards of hygiene in a hospital; that is targets putting lives at risk and helping to increase the chances of people getting sicker, not better, in hospital.
	It is time that the Government's obsession with target setting came to an end. To be genuinely responsive to patients and to local community needs, the NHS must be free to determine local priorities. Of course, performance should be measured and compared, but it should be measured on ill health prevention and health outcomes achieved: the years added to a person's life and the lives saved should be the yardsticks against which NHS performance is measured. However, because the measurement culture is so dominant and what is easy to measure tends to be what gets measured, the focus is always on acute care.
	I believe strongly that the balance in our health care system needs to shift from disease treatment to disease prevention. Unless much more is done to tackle the root causes of ill health, the costs of health care will continue to climb. When it comes to debating whether health care costs will increase and what the drivers behind that will be, the tendency has been to assume that health care costs will rise as a consequence of a growing elderly population. The Government are to be applauded, because their Wanless inquiry into health care expenditure comprehensively debunked that myth. It is not old age that is going to drive up the costs of the NHS bill. What will be the real driver behind increased health care costs over the next 50 years? It will be the rise of chronic diseases: diabetes—particularly type 2 diabetes—coronary heart disease, arthritis and the many other chronic health conditions that are the direct consequence of the obesity epidemic emerging in this country and across the world.
	The challenge is to build a public health service that is capable of leading a revolution in health care, and which tackles the causes of ill health, rather than just treating its consequences. Poverty, poor environment, bad housing, poor diet and lack of exercise are the roots of many chronic diseases in the UK today. That is why Liberal Democrats argue that the health service ought to be commissioned locally by local government, not just bringing health and social care together, but creating the opportunity to tackle those root causes of poor health. That is why we reject the Conservative proposition that a national quango needs to take responsibility for the national health service. We think it wrong to remove from political accountability day-to-day control of the NHS in that way. We reject the idea that we should allow an unelected, unaccountable quango to take charge of the NHS.
	Today's debate is really about the Conservatives' proposition and their analysis of the health service. It is a chance—at least, it should be—to showcase their new health policy, but we did not hear a great deal about that. We heard a lot of analysis, but not much prescription. In fact, their new policy, the centrepiece of which is the patient passport, needs to be showcased as much as possible. On this occasion, the Secretary of State is right: it is not so much a passport as an exit visa from the national health service. It would allow those who can afford to go private to withdraw from the NHS 60 per cent. of the NHS cost of the operation.
	That figure is an important one to keep in mind, but in truth we are not talking about 60 per cent. of what the patient has to pay, because private operations—surprise, surprise—cost more than they cost within the NHS. Let us consider a hip replacement—just the sort of routine operation for which someone might opt to go privately. A hip operation in the NHS costs some £4,356. The same operation in the private sector can cost up to £9,000; indeed, some say that it can cost a little more. Sixty per cent. of the NHS cost is £2,614, but that is just 29 per cent. of the cost of going private; the rest has to come from the individual's pocket.

Tim Loughton: I regret that the hon. Gentleman is playing the bogus figures game with the ones that the Government came up with. If he had visited hospitals in the independent, not-for-profit sector, he would know that that the price paid to those hospitals is much lower than the tariff that he suggests; indeed, in some cases it is equivalent to the NHS headline figures. Would a Liberal Democrat Administration—God forbid—commission no operations outside the NHS, not even the 250,000 that this Government are commissioning but misleading us about, in terms of the figures that they are paying?

Paul Burstow: What we would not do is to try to palm off the passport idea as a golden opportunity to liberate people, giving them the chance to receive health care quickly. In reality, they would still have to pay huge bills, at the expense of our national health service itself.

Mark Hendrick: Why is the hon. Gentleman against targets if he is genuinely in favour of measuring performance? Without targets, there is no benchmark. He talks about outputs, but we also need inputs. We obviously need quality care, but we also need some form of target to deal with patient numbers; without it, we cannot determine whether the outcomes are effective. The Liberal Democrats say that they are against targets and against the Conservatives' patient passport, but what would they do to improve the health service?

Paul Burstow: As I said—I am more than happy to amplify the point a little—we propose genuine, democratic local control of health care commissioning. We believe that health care commissioning is best done in the context of local government, in which there is the opportunity not just to integrate health and social care commissioning, but to look across the piece and address environmental health, housing and a range of other factors that are the real underlying causes of health problems. That is the agenda that we want to move on to, because we believe that it is the way to secure better health outcomes in the long run.

John Hutton: rose—

Paul Burstow: I see that the Minister is becoming very alert. That is not a good reason to give way, but I will nevertheless give way to him.

John Hutton: I am very grateful. I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and giving it the respect that it is due. I understood what he said about local government, so can I take it that, if there were to be a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Health, no national targets would be set for the NHS?

Paul Burstow: Absolutely, because national targets of the sort produced by the Government are input and process-driven, not outcome-led, so they do not make a difference. What we want in respect of national priority setting and strategic goals is to move the focus of our health care system to public health. As to the current process targets, I am happy to go on the record and repeat what my colleagues have consistently said for a long time in critique of the Government's approach. If that gives the Government any form of succour, they are suckers to take it that way.

Tim Loughton: rose—

Paul Burstow: I give way one more time to the Front-Bench spokesman.

Tim Loughton: I am terribly grateful. We are starting to get at the beginnings, but only the beginnings, of a Liberal health policy. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if Liberal Democrat councillors are put in charge of health policy locally, everything will be rosy? Why does he not trust professionals in the health service to determine the medical objectives that need to be followed? Many professionals will be on a national body, but at arm's length from political control, as we have suggested. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman wants more, not less, political control.

Paul Burstow: The reality is that I am prepared to trust the patients and the people, and to achieve that through local democracy rather than through the central autocracy proposed by the Conservatives. It is interesting to see that the Conservatives dare to criticise an exposition of Liberal Democrat policy when they did not have the courage to outline any of their health care policies in the debate tonight—[Interruption.] It is a great pity that the shadow Secretary of State did not take that opportunity. It is also a great pity that he is not in his place to take up the challenge later.
	In setting out the Conservative health care policy in early October—it seems a long time ago when so much water and so many leaders have gone under the bridge since—the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) identified the fact, as reported in the Daily Mail on 7 October, that 300,000 people currently had operations in the private sector. That is entirely right, but the number is important: 300,000 people opting to go private. In the same article, he took the example of a hip operation as the basis for working through the proposals. If 300,000 are already opting to go private and, under a Conservative Government, they could claim a contribution to a third or less of their private bill, what would that do for the NHS budget? We should remember that this is before a single extra NHS patient opts to use their patient passport at all. Without a single extra operation being performed, the Conservative policy would cost the NHS at least £900 million a year—possibly more, depending on the types of operation done in the private sector under the policy. That is taxpayers' money leaving the NHS with not a single extra operation being performed as a consequence.
	Where will the extra £900 million come from? Typically for the Conservatives, we have heard no detail, no costings and no proposals for how the policy would be rolled out in practice—[Interruption.] If the detail exists, I wish that Conservative Front Benchers had taken the opportunity to outline it. It has certainly not been put into the public domain—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) protesting from a sedentary position that there is detail, and then not publishing it. That hardly amounts to a Conservative policy. Can he now provide some detail?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman should know that, for the last few weeks, our party has talked an awful lot about the patient passport. Considerable detail has come out. We are about to produce some rather interesting costings on how it will work. If he would be more patient, he might be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps he will now tell us how much extra in local council tax—the latest invention of the Liberal Democrats—it will cost us all, again before a single extra operation is done, to install all the extra managers and political bureaucrats that he wants to introduce into the NHS.

Paul Burstow: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman protests too much. We should wait to hear the details of the Conservatives' policy, then have a good belly laugh when they come out, because they will not add up. The Conservatives have not yet outlined how they are going to carve this £900 million out of the NHS budget to pay for their policy. That money will not add a single operation, private or public. That is the charge that the Conservatives must answer when developing their policies and selling them to the public.
	The Conservatives would have us believe that they want to reform the national health service. I cannot criticise their motion in terms of its analysis of many of the flaws in the Government's approach, but the Government's amendment is much too self-serving and self-congratulatory to deserve the support of the Liberal Democrats tonight. From what I have heard of the Conservatives' policies, and of the details that they have outlined bit by bit during the exchanges that we have just had, we certainly would not wish to demonstrate our support for them in the Lobby. The Conservatives say that they favour reform, but what did they do when they were in office? They ran the national health service down and, in opposition, they are now all about abandoning it. That is not the solution that this country wants.

David Wright: Before I was elected to the House, I spent some 13 years working in the public sector. Much of that time was spent working under a Conservative Government who brought in a whole raft of indicators and targets for local government. We struggled with them a bit at the time, but that Government were right to build up those targets and to increase the amount of information that was collected relating to delivery. Therefore, it is interesting that, in this debate, the Conservatives seem to have performed a complete volte face. Originally, they tried to approach the issue from the perspective of placing a business emphasis on the management of public services and, as I have said, they were probably right; yet they now seem to have changed their position and to be considering abandoning responsibility for key targets in the health service.
	How can we manage a service of the scale of the NHS without targets? If we cannot measure it, how can we manage it? I assume that the Conservatives will not be using targets in future debates, yet their Front-Bench spokesman's opening speech used a whole raft of targets to try to illustrate how badly the health service was doing. Indeed, without such information, he could not have delivered his speech. Throughout my time in local government, I particularly enjoyed the contribution to management theory of Tom Peters, who said:
	"Get hard data. Get it quickly. That's the key."
	That is the key to managing in business, and it also applies to the health service.
	The Conservatives' attack on targets completely misses the point. Labour Members have said all along that targets are not an end in themselves, but a vital mechanism by which we can improve our health service and increase accountability. Of course we must decentralise control of the health service, so that bureaucracy and form filling are reduced, but that must be balanced by the need for national standards. Patients should get the same guarantees of basic quality from the NHS wherever they live in the country, and national targets help us to drive up performance and standards where necessary. The Government are, of course, bringing in proposals for foundation trusts for those hospitals that reach the very highest standards. We are trying to improve national targets across the board, and when they are achieved the trusts will give greater freedom and flexibility to local managers to set targets and priorities. I very much welcome that initiative.
	The public want to know how their money is being spent and what the results are. The main focus is, of course, on acute services, although target setting through primary care trusts is also delivering significant improvements in community-based health care.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said that during the 18 years of Conservative government, we ran down the national health service. Would the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) like to confirm that when we returned to office in 1979, expenditure on the health service was £8 billion, and that when we left in 1997 it was £42 billion? In the light of that, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite what he says, especially on targets, we are trying to get rid only of the contradictory targets that lead to a worse health service and that the whole emphasis should be on what we want to produce—a better managed national health service?

David Wright: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Undeniably, there were real-terms increases in health spending throughout the 18 years of a Conservative Government, and that resulted in improvements in services. However, services, including drugs and health care, have become more and more expensive over the years. I think that when the hon. Gentleman has heard my remarks he will acknowledge that we have made significant increases in health spending. I shall return to his point later.
	In his speech, the Secretary of State outlined the progress that we are making nationally and gave some of the headline figures on health care. I want to tell the House how we are doing in Telford and Wrekin and in Shropshire. During the past three years, there has been an increase in investment of £25 million in capital developments and new service initiatives at the two main acute hospitals in Shropshire—the Royal Shrewsbury hospital and the Princess Royal hospital in Telford. In addition, £19 million has been invested in moving services from the barracks-style buildings on the south site at the Royal Shrewsbury and opening new facilities to replace them in both Telford and Shrewsbury. In 18 years of a Conservative Government, we saw no progress on the Copthorne south site; progress has occurred only since the Labour Government were elected.
	Last year, trauma and orthopaedic clinics, a new X-ray department and an endoscopy unit were opened at the Princess Royal. In 2001, a new maternity unit was opened and the hospital has also created a new clean air theatre. A new gymnasium and a refurbished fracture clinic have been opened recently. The accident and emergency department has been fully refurbished. Future investment will deliver a range of new facilities for haematology and chemotherapy treatment; there will be day surgery theatres, a dermatology unit and a satellite renal unit.
	There has been tremendous progress in capital investment. The Opposition often accuse us of putting in the cash while not securing delivery, so what is that investment delivering on targets? More patients are being treated more quickly and in better buildings than ever before. Between 1997–98 and 2002–03, the total number of cases seen by the two hospitals rose by about 12 per cent. to 433,000. That includes elective surgery, emergency in-patients, out-patient attendances and accident and emergency attendances. Even with that increase, in-patient and out-patient waiting lists fell dramatically. No in-patient is waiting more than 12 months and the total size of the list has fallen by 34 per cent.
	By March 2003, no out-patients were waiting for more than 28 weeks and the number of people waiting for more than 13 weeks fell by more than 36 per cent. between 1998 and 2003. In the words of the chief executive of the trust, Neil Taylor:
	"Year on year activity is increasing, with the number of referrals from GPs and emergency cases going up, but our lists have been going down. The length of time that people are waiting for an operation has been significantly reduced."
	We should trust NHS staff to know their business, although I know that that kind of performance and improvement in the delivery of targets is not what the Opposition want to hear. I am sorry about that.
	Alongside that success in acute services, the PCT is making major progress in planning and delivering community-based services. In my constituency, two brand new GP surgeries have opened, in Dawley last year and in Oakengates this year. There has also been a large refurbishment at one of the most popular surgeries in the town. Resources allocated to the PCT will increase by £40 million to £152.9 million a year by 2005–06.

Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least one PCT in Shropshire has been forced to use money allocated in this year's budget for the consultants' contract to help to bridge its financial gaps, such is the state of the financial predicament it faces? As a result, now that the consultants' contract has been approved, that PCT will struggle to afford to pay for it.

David Wright: There are problems with acute services following the merger of two large hospital trusts, and there is certainly a need for us to invest more heavily in new and developing services on those two sites and in the consultants' contract. We also have some problems with the maternity services provided at Oswestry. So things are not all rosy, and I was going on to say that we have some problems and we can always do better. For example, the PCT does not receive its calculated fair share of resources at the moment. I hope to secure an Adjournment debate on that very issue in the next few weeks. The new junior doctors' hours are a cause for concern in relation to staffing capacity and funding, particularly in accident and emergency services. However, the number of student doctors in this country has risen by 50 per cent. since 1997.
	In general, the picture is very good. There are more doctors and nurses working in the NHS now than at any time in the past 15 years, so there is an impressive pace of change and significant progress is being made. Increased resources and capacity, coupled with reforms to the NHS, have already had a direct and positive effect on the quality of treatment that NHS patients receive in Telford and Wrekin and Shropshire.
	The question that the Opposition have to answer is that, if targets really are having
	"a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes",
	how do they explain the facts that I have outlined in relation to Telford and Wrekin and Shropshire and the improvements that have been made to our local NHS? The use of targets has contributed to those improvements, but we have always been clear that they are a means to an end—a better health service for all—and not an end in themselves.
	I shall briefly consider the Opposition's proposals for the NHS and what their targets are. The Opposition have clearly decided to tear up the post-war consensus on health. Even Lady Thatcher, in the years that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) mentioned earlier, did not attempt to do what the Conservative leadership plans to do to the health service. They no longer believe in the fundamental principle that NHS health care should be available to all, free at the point of need.
	In fact, the patient passport is a Trojan horse for privatising the service. The only people who will be able to benefit from it are those who can already afford to pay for private medical treatment. The vast majority of patients will not be able to exercise any choice under the Tory proposals because, if they want to exercise that choice, they will have to pay to do so.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read any of the proposals. Everyone would benefit from the patient passport, without any coercion to pay a penny, by being able to exercise choice and gain access to any NHS hospital in the country. That would be much more widespread than the bogus choice that the Secretary of State for Health is peddling. I want to make it absolutely clear that not a single person would be coerced into paying a single penny for any treatment in the NHS. Labour Members must stop peddling this nonsense.

David Wright: The problem is that if people wanted to jump the waiting list, they would have to pay more money. The problem with the patient passport is that if people wanted health care, they would have to pay for it in addition to what they are currently paying through general taxation. If hon. Members visited the people who live on the estates that I represent, they would find that they could not afford that expense. They want a high quality NHS, funded from general taxation and free at the point of delivery, and I am very proud to stand up for those principles this evening.
	The Opposition's plans would cost the NHS about £2 billion to enable the minority of patients to go private. The battle lines are drawn in relation to the NHS, and I am confident that the people of Telford are on the side of the Government.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The targets cover a multitude of sins, but I have specialised in one issue. I am a member of the Public Administration Committee, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), and the Committee considered all the targets, not just those in the health service. The first thing we discovered was that there is a great raft of targets in the NHS. In fact, the Government announced the 62 targets during a Select Committee sitting. We had no idea—even though the Select Committee is Labour dominated—that that was going to happen. Those 62 targets are set at the top level, but by the time that they reach down to GPs on the ground, they can have multiplied because there are targets on targets. We discovered parts of hospitals that create targets for other targets, for consultants, doctors and anyone who works in the NHS.
	The Committee went to Bristol to look at what was happening there—Bristol was chosen for no particular reason other than that it was fairly close to London and it has a good train service. What we found was startling. We expected to see only the top management, but we found ourselves in a room that was filled with people who worked in Bristol hospitals. The problem was that they all wanted to talk about targets to a Select Committee—I do not quite know whether they all understood what a Select Committee did, but that is not the point. They all said the same thing—that targets were damaging health care in this country. They said that they were damaging it for different reasons: some said that it was because they are confusing; some said that it was because they are not achievable; some said that they did not have the money to achieve them; others said that they had had no clear steer from the Government on what to try to achieve. Others, more worryingly, said that they were being bullied to hit targets, that they were being forced by managers into a position in which they had to berate staff to hit targets, and that ambulances were going around car parks where, at the end of the month, patients were being left on trolleys without wheels so that they could be counted as beds, not trolleys. We also discovered that people needing eye tests were not being given the chance to have them because a target had to be hit at the end of the month. Up to 1,000 patients had been taken off a list relating to eye conditions—those suffering from glaucoma, diabetes and so on—because the target could not be guaranteed to be hit. That cannot be right.
	When we started to investigate further, nurses told us that they would start to take action—Ian Bogle made some famous statements to which I shall refer later—because they simply did not have the ability to achieve the targets. The point has been reached at which targets are being created in the health service that are not achievable and that the staff do not want to achieve, and the detrimental effect on patients and staff is out of all proportion to what they are trying to achieve.
	The star rating system for hospitals is also a problem—Bath is the other prime example in the west country of a hospital that was in a terrible state. It could not achieve the star rating because it could not hit the Government's targets. Why? Because its expertise is not what the Government were trying to target—in that case, cancer. The same was true of my local hospital in Taunton, Musgrove Park, which is not a cancer specialist hospital, although it must still try to hit cancer targets. However, that is not what it is known for or good at.
	When the permanent secretary at the Department of Health came to talk to the Committee, his view was that the targets system had to be streamlined. That is fine—all targets need to be streamlined—but that is not what is happening. When it starts from the top and the permanent secretary sets out what we must try to achieve, five or 10 years later—and some of the targets extend for up to a decade—the targets bear no relation to what they set out to do in the first place.
	The Public Administration Committee—another member of which, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), has just joined us in the Chamber—said that it was detrimental to have more than five targets. Lord Browne of BP said that no more than five to 10 targets should be set, and that we should expect to fail to meet two to three of them. People should not be forced down a particular line when they cannot hit targets. Lord Browne is a fairly astute character to say the least—he was certainly an impressive witness in front of the Select Committee—and his view is that an organisation cannot work on 62 targets; it must quarter the number, and if it does not it will cause instability. In an organisation such as BP, which is not national but international, we can imagine how that would be magnified.
	I want to talk about more local issues. Somerset Coast primary care trust, which is in my constituency, has three small hospitals: Minehead, Williton and Bridgwater. Our problem is that they supply one major hospital, Musgrove Park in Taunton. There is no straightforward bus service from any of those hospitals to Taunton. If people have to see a consultant, they have to rely on an ambulance car service, the one ambulance that is based in west Somerset, or a bus. The bus may or may not get people to the hospital in time, but they know that they must spend the whole day there, whether they like it or not.
	When people get to the hospital in Taunton, they sometimes discover that the consultant cannot see them. That might happen because there is a problem at the end of the month—it is funny how problems build up toward the end of each month. Cancellations occur, people cannot be fitted in, or machines break down. People then have to wait at the hospital because they have difficulty getting back from there.
	In west Somerset, wards have to be shut periodically to allow staff to be transferred to the main hospital in Taunton to ensure that targets are hit. That happens regularly and we accept it because we have no choice—people in rural areas do not have a choice because where else can they go? We have paired up with hospitals in Dorset. People who go to the next main hospital from Taunton have to get to Poole or Bournemouth. I drove down to that area on Friday night and it took me more than two hours. The sort of roads that people have to use make it difficult to get there. How can transferring people by car to a hospital in Bournemouth hit targets? Surely the common-sense approach would be to transfer people from Somerset to Bristol or Exeter, but that is not happening.
	A further problem is the general practitioner service in rural areas. I have been to see all my local GPs and they are an extremely good bunch who work hard. However, they cannot recruit replacements for retiring GPs, although they have tried. They cannot find GPs who are willing to set up home in rural areas. The opposite was true in the old days, but there are now fewer GPs in the area. One of my local rural surgeries, which has four or five doctors, has been continually advertising for a GP, but it cannot find one—that cannot be right. The problem is that if one GP retires in a place such as Bridgwater, 3,000 extra patients have to go to a different surgery for what is called "the time being". However, that does not happen for "the time being" because the problem has still not been resolved, although the PCT and the strategic health authority have tried extremely hard to address it. The situation has arisen because they are trying to hit targets, but it is not working. Doctors say that they must keep pushing people through, so they do not want to refer people to other services. We need doctors to start at the beginning with the patients whom they have. All the lists for doctors in the east of my constituency are closed, so some people cannot get a doctor.
	For some unknown reason, the headquarters of our mental health service is in my constituency—I do not know whether that says anything about the constituency's hon. Member. The head of the service has moved on, which is fine, but we are left with a massive problem. We have lost bed after bed after bed. We cannot look after people with mental health problems from Bridgwater or Somerset. Worse still, in order to hit targets, people from outside our area are being referred there, and they take up the beds that we have left. That happens because areas such as Bristol that have too many patients have been told that they must hit targets, so they push people down the road and send them out to places such as Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. That cannot be right. We are losing beds because we do not have the money to pay for them, yet our area's people cannot get beds because of draconian measures from the centre to hit targets. The system is badly wrong.
	We are trying to resolve the long-term effect of targets on old folk. One of the towns in my constituency has the highest proportion of elderly people in the county. However, so many care beds have been lost in my area that doctors are forced to refer patients to hospital for overnight stays. A person cannot get a bed in an emergency because we do not have sufficient beds to take up the slack.
	Members of the PAC know how many beds have been lost in long-term and short-term care. If doctors cannot put old people into a care place overnight, they refer them to hospital, but hospitals do not want them because they take up extra beds. The hospital's attitude is, "We don't want them because it does not work for our targets", so those people are pushed out again. In my constituency, more and more people have been put back into the community too quickly and without adequate care and back-up. To judge by the letters I receive, the situation is getting worse.
	The figures show that the level of care in the community has dropped dramatically. Again, that may be the result of a target. All I know for certain is that people are coming back into my community and are not getting the care they need to ensure that they are properly looked after. The situation in accident and emergency departments is also worrying. Don Mackechnie, an accident and emergency consultant, said:
	"I am appalled to see how A&E departments have been forced into taking extraordinary measures for a week-long period just to meet political targets."
	Old people are being pushed into those departments because there is no choice. That cannot be fair.
	The targets are political. They are targets for targets' sake. When we wrote the PAC report, we said that it is not possible to use targets as a means in themselves. That does not work, as has been proven over the past five years. A good target is a target that is achievable, but we cannot break the organisation that we are trying to get the best out of in the process. If we break the organisation, we get what happened in Bristol—deceit, difficulties and problems of low morale. I do not know where the doctors will come from, but they will not want to enter a service in which they are berated because they cannot hit a target. Political targets have one use only, which is to try to ensure that the money that is supposedly being pumped into the health service gets there. I tell the Minister that it is not and it is going wrong.

Adrian Bailey: We need to be clear that the Opposition motion is not just about targets. By proposing the abolition of targets, they are making it clear that they oppose the planning of public resources, performance management and public accountability. Above all, they oppose policies that they thought appropriate when they were in government.
	I was interested in what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said about the inadvisability of centrally driven targets. Those of us with long memories may remember the statement by the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), when she introduced the White Paper on targets, which included targets on coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, mental illness and AIDS. She said:
	"In each of these key areas we have set challenging but achievable targets . . . In other areas, more development and research will be needed before national targets can be set. What we are proposing are not short-term measures. The strategy will grow and develop . . . The White Paper identifies other possible target areas for the future. This underlines the fact that it represents a beginning, not an end."
	Furthermore, she said:
	"The NHS management executive will require health authorities to build the target-setting approach into all levels of local activity. The strategy will be central to the work of the NHS."—[Official Report, 8 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 335–37.]
	We can only marvel at where the Tories were when in government and where they are now in opposition.
	The policies on targets adopted by this Government are consistent with that approach, with one significant difference: under the Tories, the NHS was starved of fund, but under Labour targets are backed up by consistent, sustained and record investment. One reason the Tories do not want to hear about targets is that they know that the target-setting culture and the performance indicators that underpin it demonstrate just how far we are going and just how much progress has been made with the extra investment from this Government.
	The current NHS targets are not figures plucked out of the air; they arose from research and consultation with interested bodies. They relate to the milestones and objectives of the NHS plan, which, in turn, was determined following the widest public and patient consultation exercise ever conducted in the service.
	I consulted my trust, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals trust, to find out its experience of targets. Its response was that targets are very useful in a number of areas. The first is planning. Trusts now have clarity about public and Government expectations, and that allows them to examine their services, to plan clearly and to deploy their expanding resources accordingly. It enables them to prioritise and to invest in those areas of the service designed to meet those priorities.
	Targets help with staff morale. Demonstrating improved performance against targets and communicating that to staff and local communities provides a boost to staff morale and is good for both recruitment and retention. Dedicated NHS staff who do a good job like to know that their efforts are formally and publicly recognised. I acknowledge that there is a danger in that, in those hospitals not reaching targets, there is a potential for lowering staff morale. However, my experience of NHS staff is that their commitment to the public is such that they would always welcome ways to improve management and planning so that they may serve the public more effectively. Without NHS targets and performance indicators, there is no way in which staff can know what they can achieve.
	Targets help the local community. Trust performance indicators are keenly reviewed by groups and individuals who can then argue their case from a more informed position than before. They also provide a clear, shared framework for discussion between the primary care trust and the hospital trust about the deployment of their increased funding. PCTs are better able to account to local people and GPs the basis for their decisions and priorities.
	Targets also help in expanding NHS capacity. Where trusts are in negotiation with building contractors and commercial banks for private finance deals, the management of risk is an essential part of those negotiations. Where the private sector can see that a trust is high performing, and therefore a lower financial risk, it enhances the prospect of private sector funding. Without financial targets, that source of financial reassurance would be lost.
	Targets have also helped performance. By setting standards high and targeting efforts to pull the worst performers up to the highest standards, the NHS has already raised standards throughout the country. We have already discussed a clear example of that: the 90 per cent. of people who visit accident and emergency departments and are treated and discharged within four hours of arrival. The geographical variations in that service have virtually been eliminated.
	The motion has nothing to do with red tape, bureaucracy or the perversion of clinical priorities in the NHS. The profound change in the Conservatives' policy since they were in government has everything to do with their desire to undermine and privatise the NHS. It is part of a wider strategy to reduce public funding and increase private practice. It signals the end of any Tory aspiration to improve the nation's health care through the NHS. By removing targets, the Tories are removing incentives for improvements and ending the possibility of an informed dialogue between local communities and local health care providers. By removing targets, they are reducing funding for the NHS and hiding the consequences. The so-called patient passport would deprive the NHS of an estimated £1 billion. Tax relief on private medical insurance would cost another £1 billion, which would pay for 16 hospitals, or 80,000 nurses, or 25,000 consultants, or 30,000 GPs. A funding deficit on that scale would devastate the NHS's ability to meet future public expectations.
	By removing targets and performance indicators, the Tories hope to disguise the full extent of the failure of their policies to deliver the service that the public want. Their policy is designed to assist a minority of the better off who can afford private treatment while short-changing the great majority who depend on a publicly funded NHS free at the point of delivery. This debate is not just about targets but about the future of the NHS. Removing targets is an essential prerequisite for the privatisation process supported by the main Opposition party. There is a clear choice between the Government's vision of a well funded, better focused NHS, sensitive to the needs of a well informed local community and the Tory sabotage of an underfunded NHS haemorrhaging money to the private sector, unable to meet local need and with no means for the public to measure that deterioration. I am confident that the public and the great majority of people who work in such a dedicated way in the NHS will back the Government.

Richard Taylor: In the three minutes available to me I shall make just one crucial point. I want to pick up a phrase in the Government amendment about the House welcoming
	"the positive effect of the right targets"
	and ask whether we have got the right targets. In 2002 and 2003, nine key targets dictated the outcome of the star ratings. In addition to those nine key targets there were a large number of items with a clinical or patient focus. Sadly, an analysis of the 2002 ratings shows that the patient focus, particularly in the six points in the in-patient survey, bears no relation to the star rating that the trust received. The results of in-patient surveys of three-star trusts could be as low as those for no-star trusts. The balanced scorecard approach, which I have tried to get lots of people to explain, does not seem to take that into account. The 2003 ratings awarded by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection did not appear to take account of the patient focus. The clinical focus had little influence, and neither did the staff survey.
	The targets that we should be aiming at should include patient satisfaction because, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), we cannot yet measure patient outcomes reliably. I was interested to read in today's papers that Aston university in Birmingham is to undertake a comprehensive poll of NHS staff for the Commission for Health Improvement and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. I hope that staff opinion will be taken into account more in performance ratings in future. I appeal to the Minister to push for staff surveys and patient surveys to be taken into account. Why does nobody take into account the full inspections of hospitals that are undertaken by all the royal colleges for accreditation? They examine the performance of a hospital in detail and could add tremendously to the value of measures such as star ratings.
	I finish by pointing out that targets are to be aimed at. When he missed a target, even Robin Hood was not penalised or shot directly. I do not believe that targets should be enforced to such an extent that trusts are penalised for not hitting them.

Tim Loughton: We have had a good debate with some interesting contributions. It is a shame that we could not hear more from the last speaker, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), with his professional experience. He is right. The debate should be about the right targets, which the Government are trying to weasel out of. A target is to be aimed at. It should not drive the entire service and rationale of the NHS, as it does, with all the intimidating tactics that are used.
	We had some interesting contributions from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), who has momentarily disappeared, says that targets help to drive up performance and standards. It is not the targets that do that; it is the professionals and resources in the health service that drive up the performance and standards. That is the fundamental misconception of Labour Members, which is why the debate is so essential.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), when not erroneously suggesting that we should put down elderly people, is a distinguished member of the Administration Committee, and gave us the benefit of the experience of people in business, who know what targets are all about. He gave the example of Lord Browne, the chief executive of BP Amoco plc, saying that any good business would have between five and 10 targets, but under the new formula announced by the Secretary of State earlier this evening, there is one target in the NHS for every £1 billion of expenditure. If that principle were applied to business, BP would have many hundreds of targets, making it completely unmanageable. It would be absurd.
	The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), I fear, reflected the topsy-turvy world in which Labour lives, saying that staff to whom he had spoken in his constituency verily embrace the target culture and welcome it, and that it has helped with staff morale. He ought to get out more and speak to real people who will give him real answers, not the answers that he wants to hear to the warped questions that he might be asking.
	We make no apology for returning once again to the subject of the Government's obsession with targets and performance tables, and, most crucially, the bureaucratic baggage that attaches itself to such a system, which is so deeply ingrained in the Government's mindset, but nowhere more extensively and damagingly than in respect of health care. The Government have a target for everything, but know the ultimate value to the health of a patient of nothing. They pursue a policy that has as its primary objective the health of the national health system, rather than the health of the patients whom it exists to serve.
	As the Audit Commission stated in its June report,
	"too many targets and indicators risk obscuring where the real priorities lie."
	There are targets for reducing maximum waiting times for out-patient appointments, reducing to four hours the maximum wait in accident and emergency, guaranteeing access to a primary care professional within 24 hours, reducing substantially the mortality rates, achieving a maximum wait of four months for out-patient appointments, achieving a maximum wait of nine months for in-patients—the list goes on and on.
	There is one good target that has been achieved, according to a report in Hospital Doctor. The radiology department at the Ealing hospital trust has successfully reduced the wait time for a barium enema from 19 weeks to four weeks. The reduction has been achieved by local people using their ingenuity and local expertise in that hospital, rather than relying on some centrally driven bureaucratic target that the Secretary of State has told hospitals to achieve.
	There are so many targets and so much measuring to be done, but the Secretary of State would be well advised to listen to an old farming adage: the pig does not get any fatter the more you weigh it. That is what all the targets are about. Individually, they all sound perfectly reasonable objectives, and none of us would not want to reach a state of improvement in health care generally, characterised by such worthy aspirations. Taken in their entirety, however, the cumulative effect of placing so much importance on these targets, completely suppressing the professional skill and judgment of doctors and nurses, is often to distort clinical outcomes; to create problems down the line for patients who do not fit neatly into the target priorities; to place intolerable pressure on intimidated managers to claim that targets have been met, irrespective of whether that is borne out by the evidence; and completely to demoralise the health professionals who came into the NHS to treat patients and to make them better. The outgoing chairman of the British Medical Association, Ian Bogle, describes it as
	"the suffocation of professional responsibility by target-setting and production line values that leaves little room for the professional judgement of individual doctors or the needs of individual patients . . . The auditing of every bowel movement on every ward in every NHS hospital would be a fitting memorial to Alan Milburn"—
	the former Secretary of State—
	"now that he has decided to spend more time with his family".
	We have heard many examples of the target culture distinctly distorting clinical outcomes. The experience of the Bristol eye hospital was related to the Public Administration Committee by its clinical director, Dr. Richard Harrod:
	"The waiting time targets for new outpatient appointments at the Bristol Eye Hospital have been achieved at the expense of cancellation and delay of follow-up appointments. At present we cancel over 1,000 appointments per month. Some patients have waited 20 months longer than the planned date for their appointment."
	That is on top of all the problems that are being caused by the delay in funding the National Institute for Clinical Excellence-approved treatment for wet form age-related macular degeneration, which, after undergoing the second-longest approval process of any treatment, is still being delayed to the extent that some 3,000 people risk going blind as a result.
	An estimated 2 million patients are effectively being banned from making GP appointments under the advance access scheme because it would hinder GP surgeries in meeting the Government's 48-hour waiting time targets. That particularly affects elderly and disabled people who have to make special transport arrangements
	On mental health, Dr. Matt Muijen, director of the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, has expressed concern that the targets for mental health services mean that many patients are being neglected at the expense of high-profile areas. He states:
	"The trend I am beginning to see is that fewer people get better care. People who are high risk are getting good care but there is a big group of people who just need ongoing care. What about the people who fall through the cracks? . . . We certainly know an awful lot of places where they have to close down hospital beds to fund crisis teams."
	Research carried out by the Conservative health team over recent months with the mental health trusts shows that, in practice, many of the new systems that the Government boast about rolling out are not happening—their claims are not being met.
	There has been a big increase in the number of operations cancelled less than 24 hours before they are due to happen. That is a result of targets that give wrong priorities to clinical problems. Last year, 70,000 such operations were cancelled. There has been an increase of 4,627 in emergency readmissions to hospital after hospital treatment, often because people are discharged too early owing to pressure on management to meet targets elsewhere in the hospital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, there is serious doubt about the accuracy of the data that are produced supposedly to attain those targets—the star rating of hospitals. James Johnson, the new chairman of the BMA, says:
	"Nobody should use star ratings to judge how well a hospital is doing. They measure little more than hospitals' ability to meet political targets and take inadequate account of clinical care or factors such as social deprivation."
	In May, a survey in The Times showed that only 15 per cent. of primary care trusts in England believed the 2003 star ratings to be accurate. People involved in health care do not take the figures seriously, let alone the patients.

Hugh Bayley: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, like the NHS, every private hospital chain sets targets for cleanliness, timeliness of treatment and patient privacy? Why are the targets that are clearly necessary to maintain standards in the private sector not necessary to maintain standards in the NHS?

Tim Loughton: Independent hospitals have a different definition of targets. The standards must be met, and it does not require 62 different targets for those independent hospitals and other treatment centres to produce high quality health care. It does not require dozens, scores and hundreds of managers to investigate targets and whether they have been achieved. Why can independent hospitals do it when the NHS has to have ever increasing targets and people to administer them? That is the genuine difference.

John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: If the Secretary of State will give me a minute to make some progress, I shall readily give way.
	The position is not helped by the ridiculous spectacle of hospital trusts drafting in extra staff for the accident and emergency tests at the end of March. Let us dispel the myth that the Secretary of State has promulgated. At the end of March, the Commission for Health Improvement inspections for the star ratings were done in one week, whatever may have happened since.

John Reid: Particular ratings were put out, but since March we have also maintained the statistics on the achievements in accident and emergency. They have consistently run between 87 per cent. and more than 90 per cent. for months.
	On administration in the private sector, does the hon. Gentleman realise that 25 per cent. of the United States' expenditure, which is 15 per cent. of gross domestic product—that is twice what we spend, but it does not cover 43.5 million people—goes on administration. In the NHS, less than half that percentage is spent on administration.

Tim Loughton: That is why we do not hold up any experiences in the United States' system as examples that we want to follow. The Secretary of State has been in the United States investigating those systems. We have based many of our policy points on the experience in continental Europe, where things have been done differently. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so afraid of the experiences of our partners in Europe.
	Most wasteful is the diversion of time and resources from dealing with patients to paperwork, inspection reports and bureaucracy. For example, at the end of September last year, there were 158,000 whole-time equivalent NHS infrastructure support staff in England. That is an increase of 12 per cent. since the Government came to power. There are 31,000 whole-time equivalent NHS managers—an increase of 44 per cent. since 1997. It is not surprising that the extra manpower is required when it has been revealed that NHS hospitals are answerable to no fewer than 36 separate regulators out of the Government's total of 108.
	The Better Regulation Task Force found that the number of regulators has mushroomed, with nine more promised, yet no one in Government takes responsibility for whether they operate effectively or should exist. David Arculus, chairman of the taskforce, said:
	"If you are running an organisation like a hospital, these people impinge on almost everything you are doing, and 36 different regulators make it very difficult when you are trying to deliver a service."
	How right he was. As the Public Administration Committee said:
	"The danger with a measurement culture is that excessive attention is given to what can be easily measured, at the expense of what is difficult or impossible to measure quantitatively even though this may be fundamental to the service provided".
	Where is the evidence that the Government's discredited target culture, which now pervades every part of the NHS, is achieving improvements that could not be better achieved by preserving the autonomy of our health professionals locally? It could be achieved by putting clinical considerations first, by trusting doctors to get on with their job, and by not undermining their judgment and overwhelming them with paperwork, box ticking and bureaucracy. It could be achieved credibly and convincingly so that patients can trust the information that they are given about NHS performance and not constantly having to question its veracity.
	The new Secretary of State promised a new broom and a new approach when he succeeded the arch-centralist, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). On 7 September, in The Observer, he stated:
	"Targets and objectives are a necessary spur. But they're not an end in themselves—the end is the best possible medical care."
	What has changed since he took over? What targets have been abandoned so far, and not simply as a result of the Government's failure to achieve them?
	The Government should have only one target in health—to improve the health of the whole nation and the quality of the clinical and social outcomes for all patients when they come into contact with all aspects of health care. They should be prioritised purely on medical considerations. Implicit in that is doing away with a raft of targets and the target mentality, which makes the goal the achievement of targets, not the health of the patient and trust in health professionals to deliver it. We must stop treating patients as statistics, whose importance and access to appropriate health care is determined purely by whether their early treatment would be a help or a hindrance to achieving the target, regardless of the clinical effect on the patient. That is the real dividing line between a Government stuck in a Stalinist time warp and—from the Conservatives—bright, imaginative and fresh ideas relevant to health care for all in the 21st century.
	This Government stand for more targets, more all-pervading bureaucracy, more demoralisation of staff and more money for maintaining the health of a system, rather than that of the patients it exists for, micro-managed by a transient Secretary of State in Richmond house. Under the Conservatives, the health service would put patients first, give all patients real choice and power to access the whole of that system, put the quality of care ahead of the number of boxes ticked, and trust the professionals to deliver without the dead hand of the Secretary of State hovering menacingly over their every move. That is the real dividing line which we will enthusiastically set out to the British people ahead of the next election; it is one that I relish.

John Hutton: I have to say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that it is not terribly sensible to refer to transient leaders, given the turmoil in his party. I want briefly to return to that theme, as he would anticipate.
	This has been a useful debate, because, as the hon. Gentleman said in his closing remarks, it has helped to highlight the differences between both sides of the House in relation to the NHS. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made another of his characteristic speeches. By that I mean that he spoke for half an hour, but could not bring himself to mention any of his party's policies in relation to the NHS. Having read them, I perfectly understand why.
	The hon. Gentleman shared with us the illuminating insight that the Tory Administration's targets for the NHS were always aspirational. That is certainly true, because the Tories never managed to meet any of them. He also confirmed, very helpfully, although I am not sure that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham took exactly the same line, that under a Conservative Administration—if ever there were to be one in the near future—no national targets would be set for the NHS. That will be of serious concern for taxpayers and for patients.
	The basic thrust of the speech made by the hon. Member for Woodspring was to deny that any progress has been made in the NHS, which is the view of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger). In the process, NHS managers were accused of systematic dishonesty. Those are serious allegations. If that is the hon. Gentleman's view, I am sure that at some point he will want to come to the House and to Ministers with their substance. We look forward to receiving those allegations—

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose—

John Hutton: I will give way in a moment, because I want to come to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
	We warmly welcome the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) to his new responsibilities, and I am sure that he would want me to pass on to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), for whom I have a great deal of respect, my very best wishes and the best wishes of all Members of the House to him and to his partner.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for his support for the work of the NHS and its staff—that is very welcome—but he is quite wrong to characterise targets as not being related to improved outcomes for patients. I am sure that, with hindsight, he will want to go away, perhaps consider some targets that we have set this year and reflect on whether he was right to make that allegation. In fact, that also goes for the two Conservative Front Benchers who contributed.
	I shall give the hon. Gentleman four examples in which we can say clearly that those targets are about improving health outcomes, which is the point and purpose of the work that we are doing: first, reducing the rate of smoking in the population—there is a clear evidence base for that, and it will improve the healthy lives of millions of people in Britain—and, secondly, increasing the proportion of patients who receive thrombolysis within 60 minutes of asking for professional help. Three years ago, only 38 per cent. of patients received thrombolysis within 30 minutes; now that figure has been doubled to 76 per cent. That will help to save lives.
	It is quite wrong to say that that target is unrelated to health outcomes. Neither is that the case with the targets to reduce the rate of untreated psychoses in the population and to require all the hospitals to have a dedicated stroke service by 2004. All those targets are about improving health outcomes for the people of this country and the evidence base for that, which the hon. Gentleman wanted, is very sound and fully set out in all the national service frameworks to which they relate.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because the Department of Health's June 2003 "Review of Early Thrombolysis" states:
	"In quarter 4 of 2002/03, 48 per cent. were treated within 20 minutes".
	That does not achieve the target of 75 per cent.

John Hutton: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's first few words, but I can tell him that I gave the right figures on thrombolysis. Perhaps he and I should correspond on the subject.
	The point I should make to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is that these targets are about outcomes. They are not arbitrary political targets. Targets only become arbitrary political targets for the Tories when we set them; that is not what they are when the Tories set them. I do not think that the irony of that will be wasted on the wider population.
	The hon. Gentleman helpfully confirmed that under the Liberal Democrats there would be no national targets for the NHS, but there would be strategic national goals. I am sure that at some point he will want to explain to us what those will be.
	I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and for Telford (David Wright) on their very effective speeches. Not everything is perfect in the national health service, and we do not claim that it is, but not everything is as hopeless and desperate as Opposition Members proclaim it to be for their own party-political reasons. That balance has been signally lacking from all the contributions we have heard from Conservatives today.
	I am particularly sorry to say that in relation to the hon. Member for Bridgwater. I do not know how many GPs were practising in the NHS in his constituency in 1997, although I know that last year three more joined the NHS there. That is progress. It is not the case that, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to be trying to argue, there has been no progress in his constituency. [Interruption.] I listened carefully to what he said, and he did not mention any progress. Perhaps in a future debate he will have the good grace to talk about progress, but he did not manage to get round to it today.
	The hon. Members for Woodspring and for East Worthing and Shoreham both used the Audit Commission report to suggest that it made the case against targets. It does not do that at all. It says
	"The overall picture is one of good progress. It is clear that setting national standards and developing action plans are powerful tools for improving services to patients, and holding organisations to account for their performance. Making more efficient use of resources is an important part of meeting targets, and is the key to long-term progress."
	Its key finding was that
	"the majority of trusts were making progress, performing well against the main targets and managing resources adequately. In particular, the huge effort put into reducing waiting times for outpatient appointments and for hospital inpatient treatment was paying off".
	Any objective person listening to the speeches of the Opposition Front Benchers must have thought that they were referring to an entirely different report.
	The debate has served at least one useful purpose in highlighting the difference between Labour Members who want the NHS to expand and who believe in the principle that care should be free at the point of use, and Opposition Members who do not want and believe those things. We want to put extra investment into the NHS; they want to cut that investment. They want to take money directly from the NHS, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, to subsidise the cost of private medical insurance. That is the policy of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, although he now seems to be denying it.
	We say that NHS patients should come first. We want choice for every NHS patient, so that we can continue to cut waiting times and make the most effective use of our hospitals and new treatment centres. The Conservative party wants to introduce top-up vouchers for those who can afford to have private operations and treatment.
	The policies that the Opposition want us to pursue are not new policies; they are just more extreme versions of failed Tory policies of the past—even more Thatcherite, even more unfair and even more damaging.

Tim Loughton: Can the Minister tell us why he thinks that last year 300,000 people, most of them not wealthy, using their own life savings—three times as many people as when his party came to power—opted out of the NHS to seek private operations, having already paid tax? Does he not think that those people are now owed more respect, care and help—and why did they have to do that in the first place?

John Hutton: They did it to avoid long waiting times. I think that everyone understands that. The hon. Gentleman must surely understand it. The answer, however, is not to take money out of the NHS, but to increase investment in the NHS. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be able to grasp that basic fact.
	None of these Tory policies is based on reason and fairness. They are based on prejudice, and on pure political opportunism. They will not benefit the many; they will benefit the few. They are riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. It is impossible to say, as the Conservatives have tried to say again tonight, that spending decisions in respect of the NHS will be made by an independent non-political body, and to announce in the same breath that £2 billion will be taken from NHS budgets to fund their policies on vouchers and private medical insurance. What a load of nonsense!
	The NHS needs investment and reform if it is to meet the health care needs of our modern society. We have set a course for both. The record investment will see spending on the NHS grow in real terms by nearly 50 per cent. by 2008, building over 100 new hospitals and employing 55,000 more nurses than in 1997, and that is due to rise further still to 70,000 by 2008, employing more doctors—20,000 more consultants and GPs by 2008—and replacing cancer screening equipment at an unprecedented rate. Forty-two per cent. of MRI scanners, 63 per cent. of CT scanners and half of all linear accelerators are brand new—all purchased in the past three years.
	The NHS is now doing 1 million more operations and elective admissions a year than when the Tories were last in power. Nearly 2 million more out-patients were seen last year compared with 1997. That is why out-patient and in-patient waiting lists are falling—and fast. Waiting times to see a consultant or a GP, the public's No. 1 priority, are coming down, too. All that is made possible by the extra investment and reforms we are making. All that is at risk from the cuts and policies proposed by the Conservative party.
	For each of those statistics, and here I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, a real difference has been made to the lives of many of our fellow citizens and their families. They are not just figures. Deaths from coronary heart disease are falling. If one listened to the hon. Member for Woodspring, one would have thought that cancer survival rates were falling—they are rising rapidly. That has all come about because the NHS has been focused on shortening the length of time that patients have to wait before their treatment begins, on making the new drugs available more quickly and on improving cancer screening.
	In truth, that is only half the story. The investment on its own is not enough if the NHS is to become the service that Labour Members wish it to be. There is, of course, still a lot to do but clear national targets and objectives have ensured that the reforms are focused on patients' priorities: reducing waiting, improving services in cancer, coronary heart disease, mental health and services for older people. Those are not arbitrary targets but real progress in crucial areas where the NHS needed to improve the service that it offered patients.
	That is the course that the House should stick to. The alternatives on offer would take us precisely in the wrong direction, with no guaranteed minimum waiting times for treatment in hospital, in accident and emergency or in a GP's surgery, no commitment to recruit more doctors and more nurses, no promise even to maintain levels of spending, no national standards, unfairness built into the system at every level, with the inevitable return to the lottery of care that we saw under previous Tory Administrations.
	The only sure thing is that things would get worse in the NHS if the Conservative party ever returned to office. If we took the advice of Opposition Members this evening, there would be no benchmarks against which taxpayers or patients could judge progress and that, of course, is how the Conservatives want it because they want to talk down the NHS and so pave the way for their pay-as-you-go health care market.
	There is a choice before us tonight, as there will be for the British people at the next election. I am looking forward to that contest, too. We will propose the extra investment and the reforms that will help the NHS to provide faster, better-quality treatment with real choice for patients in the best possible environment. The Tory alternative is a smaller NHS, with cuts in investment and tax subsidies for those who can afford private treatment. For the Conservatives, there is no sense of direction other than backwards, no purpose—we have seen it clearly tonight—other than to undermine the NHS and the values that it stands for. The choice that they face this week is either to continue with a failing leader, or to bring back the failed leaders of the past. I think that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say roll on that next election.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 333.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's record extra investment in the National Health Service; supports the Government's policy of linking investment to reform; notes that setting targets and monitoring performance against them are a vital part of the accountability process; welcomes the Government's determination to devolve power in the health service to the front line backed by three-year allocations of money to NHS organisations and clear delivery targets for the next three years; welcomes the positive effect of the right targets on staff morale, motivation and standards; welcomes the increases in capacity and workforce numbers, the greater availability of new and better drugs, the shorter waiting times and the greater choice available to all patients; notes that expenditure on NHS management as a proportion of the total NHS budget is falling; and supports the Government's commitment to a high quality NHS, responsive to the needs of patients, available to all free at the point of need.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance (England)

That the Special Grant Report (No. 127) (HC 1049) on special grant for 2003–04 for reducing fire deaths in those areas of England suffering the highest fatality rate, dated 12th August 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th September, be approved.—[Margaret Moran.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 30th October, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to pay for chairmen of select committees not later than Six o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Margaret Moran.]

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Ordered,
	That Mr David Borrow be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Joan Ruddock be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]

Jimmy Hood: I am pleased to have an opportunity to raise this important subject in the House this evening. The timing is opportune, as we will soon have a pre-Budget statement and I want to put down a marker not just to my right hon. Friend the Minister but to the Chancellor about considering ending the crazy anomalies that have existed with television licence concessions since the 1950s.
	I want to refer to an anomaly in my constituency in the village of Stonehouse, where those in 30 houses that were built as sheltered accommodation, along with some mainstream housing in the South Lanarkshire council area, are being denied what I argue is their right to concessionary licences. That injustice should be redressed. Before I come to the McLean gardens complex, I want to broaden my appeal to seeking the Minister's views on lobbying the Treasury to end the many injustices suffered by the elderly in the autumn of their lives.
	TV licence concessions originated at the beginning of the 1950s, when BBC postal services gave concessions. The scheme grew and local authorities also gave concessions. The first concessionary scheme for the elderly was put on a statutory basis in 1969 and grew out of those gestures by Post Office officials in the 1950s. Local authorities throughout the country gave pensioners and disabled people concessions to help them to pay their television licences. Indeed, when I served on a hung council in Newark and Sherwood district council, I remember that the Labour group negotiated a budget to give £25 to pensioners and disabled people. I think that £25 in 1980 would be commensurate with the cost of a TV licence today, which is £116.
	I have pressed this Government and the previous one for years to end the anomalies in the system by introducing free TV licences for all pensioners. Since 1997, I have supported the Government's drive to prioritise pensioner poverty through measures such as the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel allowance and the pension tax credit. The introduction of free television licences for the over-75s was most welcome but it is now time to go the extra mile and agree to free TV licences for all our elderly people.
	We have come a long way since the Annan report in 1977, which argued the case for ending the concession altogether. It suggested that the best way to get rid of anomalies would be to make pensioners and disabled people pay, so we have come down a long road since then. During the 16 years for which I have been a Member, I and many other hon. Members have lobbied against the many anomalies associated with TV licence concessions. Every time we solve one anomaly, we seem to engage in further debate on other anomalies that are exposed. We should end the injustice now, and I invite the Minister to support me on that this evening.
	I want to talk about McLean gardens in the village of Stonehouse in my constituency. The problems there have been ongoing since 1997 when the television licensing authority refused to grant concessionary licences to its residents. I gave my right hon. Friend the Minister a copy of a plan of McLean gardens because I was going to refer to it in my speech, but I compliment her and her staff on their research because I understand that she had already seen the plan—I am delighted about that. I am sorry, however, that other hon. Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, do not have a copy.
	The McLean gardens complex was purpose-built to accommodate people who needed sheltered accommodation and warden care. The forward-thinking South Lanarkshire council purposely intermingled 15 units of normal mainstream housing with 30 units of purpose-built sheltered accommodation. That was the council's positive step toward being socially inclusive, rather than excluding the elderly from the community, and I am sure that that will be much applauded. However, although the measure represented progress and a way forward that we could all take, the result of the council's forward thinking was that the licensing authority has withdrawn the concession to my constituents.
	I received a letter dated 8 October from the director of housing and technical resources that supports my case. He said:
	"As you are aware this matter has been ongoing since 1998 when the TV Licensing Authority refused to grant a concessionary licence to the residents in McLean Gardens, Stonehouse. The Licensing Authority's primary reasons appear to relate to the fact that the warden does not provide a service to all of the units and that the properties must be seen to be contained within the common inclusive boundary."
	If the Minister looks at the plan, she will see that the warden's flat is in the centre of the complex, built on to a group of four houses. Those four houses get the TV licensing concession, which proves how ridiculous the situation is for people in the rest of the complex.
	The director went on to say:
	"I would advise you that Housing Services contacted the Licensing Centre in March 2001 appealing the decision to exclude the residents of McLean Gardens from the scheme. In our submission we advised that McLean Gardens was purposely built as a Sheltered Housing Complex"
	and that all housing services are provided. He stated:
	"Additionally we advised that the complex was constructed in such a way as to intersperse sheltered homes with mainstream accommodation. The belief being that this would ensure that the elderly would have every chance to maintain their position as an integral part of the community and not face the very real possibility of social exclusion."
	He then said:
	"It is also true to say that I have been very disappointed in the stance of the BBC Licensing Authority to date in this matter."
	I ask my right hon. Friend to press the licensing authority to reconsider its decision on McLean gardens.
	Some 80 per cent. of residents in sheltered accommodation throughout the country are over 75. We are not talking about a king's ransom to end the injustice—far from it. I hope for a sympathetic response and should like the Minister to make representations to the licensing authority to address the injustice at McLean gardens.

Estelle Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on securing the debate. All hon. Members, irrespective of their party, will find his words familiar. We all have constituency examples of how the awarding of concessionary television licences does not make sense. Many people feel aggrieved when they think that they have a right to a concessionary TV licence and do not get one. As Members of Parliament, we have all fought cases to win concessionary licences for our constituents, and more often than not we have lost rather than won.
	My hon. Friend asked me to sympathise with the position of his constituents in McLean gardens in Stonehouse, and I do. I cannot offer an explanation that would make coherent sense to his residents. I have looked at the map. The people who live in those units of accommodation know that they are elderly and that it is sheltered housing. They understand why they are there and will not see themselves as different from people who live in sheltered accommodation in other parts of my hon. Friend's constituency.
	I can also see that, in its policy, the local authority was brave and, perhaps, right not to make ghettoes for elderly people but ensure that they were integrated into mainstream community life. On that level, I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents but, and this is the case that I want to make today, I can sympathise also with the licensing authority, which is trying to make sense of a situation that we would probably not get into if we started from scratch.
	I do not want to go through the entire history of the concessionary licence, but it was originally available to people in residential accommodation. We all knew what residential accommodation was; everybody knew that it made sense. It was what, in the old days, we called old people's homes, and nobody could walk past one without knowing what it was. Time moved on and society changed, and we thought that it was right to give people their independence as far as we could. That is when sheltered accommodation came of age, and it was right that it should do so.
	I thank my hon. Friend for making me learn about this because I had not understood the origin of the anomalies. When the legislation was originally drafted, local authorities sought to put into the concessionary licence scheme units of accommodation that no one in the House, not even the authority's own MP, would justify being there. For example, a rent collector was deemed to be providing a communal service. I do not think that any of us believes that a rent collector collects rent only from people over 60 or 65. If accommodation had a common room, that was deemed by some local authorities to make it a communal provision.
	Twenty or 30 years ago, local authorities were, quite simply, exploiting the system. They were acting in what they thought were the best interests of their constituents, but they were exploiting the system. As my hon. Friend will know, there was a need to draw up criteria that would include those people whom we wanted to include but exclude those who ought not to be included. That proved nigh on impossible. Decade after decade, as he said, attempts have been made to define sheltered accommodation so that its characteristics are as similar as possible to those of residential accommodation, which was the source of the concession. That is the challenge.
	I shall briefly list those criteria because they need to be put on the record. Sheltered accommodation has to meet all the following tests. It must form part of a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary. It must be provided for occupation by disabled persons, mentally disordered persons—that is an old-fashioned phrase now—or retired persons aged 60 years or more. It must be provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development, and it must have a person, such as a warden, whose function it is to care for the needs of the residents and who either lives on site or works there for at least 30 hours a week.
	My hon. Friend's constituents seem to be falling foul of two of those criteria. First, as he said, they do not all have a warden. Secondly, they do not have common and exclusive boundaries.

Jimmy Hood: I am sorry if I have led my right hon. Friend to believe that not all the residents have a warden; that is not the case. The warden services all 30 households on the complex equally, not just the four houses on to which her flat has been built.

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend has not misled me at all. He made that clear. There was a lack of clarity in my phrasing of the situation, and I am glad that he has put that right.
	In this case, there are 30 units of accommodation. I can see that one warden can provide a service for all those units, and do so reasonably well. But what happens if there are 50, 60 or even 156 units? What happens if the council claims that one warden, attached to one of the units, is providing a service for the other 155 units?
	I know that that is not the situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but it demonstrates the difficulty of drawing boundaries. I have looked at the plan of the complex and I deem, as he would, that any warden living there can offer a service to all his constituents living there. However, I urge him to accept that making law and regulations to include certain constituents but exclude the rest is nigh on impossible.

Jimmy Hood: I know that my right hon. Friend is not looking for excuses to justify the unjustifiable, but the council did not build a complex of 45 houses, including 30 units of sheltered accommodation, to deal with the television licence issue but because it was a good and sensible thing to do. Local authorities have a legal responsibility to service people in need of sheltered accommodation and care. If my right hon. Friend does not mind my saying so, it is like chasing rainbows.

Estelle Morris: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the fact is that regulations were drawn up following abuse by local authorities that tried to include in the scheme units of accommodation that should not have been included. Our debate demonstrates the difficulty of getting a set of criteria that includes people who should have a concessionary licence and excludes people who should not.
	May I draw my hon. Friend's attention, although perhaps I should not, to a group of people who would never qualify—pensioners under 75 on low incomes who do not live in sheltered accommodation? Whatever we do about concessionary allowances for people with disabilities and pensioners, we constantly come across anomalies. The problem with the present scheme is that we are trying to define a group of people with a shared need according to the houses or accommodation in which they live, which is nonsensical and illogical. If we were starting from scratch and said that we would like to give financial help to a group of people who are old or disabled and are on low incomes, have served their community and could be socially excluded if they do not have access to television, nobody in their right mind would want to define the houses that they live in before giving them a concessionary licence. Whoever responds to such a debate in the House and whoever introduces it will end up with that problem.

Jimmy Hood: rose—

Estelle Morris: I do not like not taking interventions in an Adjournment debate, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend and then deal with his solution to the problem.

Jimmy Hood: Perhaps I am pre-empting my right hon. Friend's response, but my solution was to give concessionary TV licences to all the elderly.

Estelle Morris: In an ideal world in which our Treasury colleagues are even more generous than normal, I would agree. In some ways, that would be a preferable solution, because the concessionary licence fee is subsidised by other licence payers. It is paid for by the BBC from its settlement, and is administered, as my hon. Friend knows, by the licensing authority acting on behalf of the BBC, not by the Government. To make things clear for my hon. Friend's constituents, under the criteria that I set out, the licensing authority has no discretion whatsoever. If it had, it would be making up the law as it went along, resulting in appeals and judicial reviews. The matter would come back to the House, which would be difficult. The funding for concessionary licences for the over-75s introduced by the Government comes from taxpayers or Treasury money. Those of us who pay income tax on higher incomes subsidise free licences for the over-75s. I believe that that is a better and fairer way of dealing with the issue. I know how assiduous my hon. Friend has been in fighting for support for pensioners, who are usually on a lower income, and for an end to pensioner poverty. He was generous enough to recognise the work that the Government have done.
	The decision to give the free licence to those over 75 may seem arbitrary. Why not give it to those over 70 or over 65? The average income of pensioners over 75 was £19 a week lower than that of pensioners under 75, so we have done right by targeting the pensioners in greatest need. The Treasury moved in the right direction by targeting that group of pensioners. As a result, 3.8 million people now get free licences. The concessionary scheme, about which my hon. Friend and I have been arguing, only ever helped 650,000 people. With one generous move from the Treasury and a huge commitment from the Labour Government, 3.8 million people now get free licences, as opposed to 650,000 who paid £5.
	Of course, it would be possible to extend the scheme to the over-70s, the over-65s or the over-60s. We could bring the age further and further down. It is a matter of judgment for the Treasury how it spends the money that we collect from the people whom we represent. If we extended the free licence scheme to the over-60s, the total cost would be £956 million. If it were extended to all households with someone over 65, it would cost £836 in total. If all households with someone over 70 were eligible, the cost would be £616 million in total. By giving a free licence to the over-75s, we have undertaken a huge financial commitment, which has helped more than 3.8 million people. We have made a start.
	My hon. Friend made a powerful case for a system for helping our pensioners, who tend to be on lower incomes and are at risk of social exclusion. The television is often their sole companion, especially during the cold, dark nights. He knows that I am not in a position to commit the Government, but I undertake to make his views known to the Treasury. All I ask in return is that he explain as best he can that his constituents in McLean gardens are on the rough end of a fairly tricky piece of legislation. It offers them no money and no concession, but I can hope only that the debate makes them feel that somebody understands their plight, and that they have an MP who has argued robustly on their behalf.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.